H. I “Debate” with Evolutionauts at www.richarddawkins.net Pt. 1

A person that  goes by the name evocritic, who seems to think like I do when it comes to evolution, copied a few of my questions to a website named http://www.richarddawkins.net.  This is a very active pro-evolution website, with a goodly number of well educated evolution biologists and avid evolutionauts at the ready for any wandering skeptic to come into and be eaten alive. To be pwned, laughed at, and sent home with tail between legs. They attacked evocritic from every angle.  Ad hominem attacks, MO attacks, attack attacks  …..he got the full treatment. Water boarding if they could have. He was finally banned for allowing me to use his password so I could take a look at the site. (They found that out by reviewing comments made to me by evocritic on my comments section. They must have really done a fine search to dig that up. A bit of eavesdropping?  Oh, they would NEVER do anything so grotesque.)  He was also banned for copy/pasting my material on their site, which they themselves have no qualms about.  Evocritic was accused of plagiarizing. Actually, he never claimed to be the writer, as far as I could see, and the fine people at richarddawkins.net couldn’t have known if he asked for permission to use the material. Unless they did an awful lot of eavesdropping.  But, in any case, he was booted.

He came to me and asked if I would go to the site.  He thought I would be able to battle better than he had, and thought it would be a good experience for all concerned, both pro and anti. At the same time I was “invited” by many of the evolutionauts to come on in.

JimBeam wrote: “Come to Richarddawkins.net steve”!!  spearthrower wrote: “Oh yes, do indeed come to richarddawkins.net Steve – evocritic used your arguments and then fled the moment someone replied”.   cycow wrote: “Yes Ssssteve, join usss…… We Evilutioisssstssss will eat your family”…shrunk wrote: “Seems Dr. Steve is a little scared about taking up the challenge,  I wonder why?”

I responded: “See you in a few days. Don’t get nervous now. Don’t forget to study those peer reviewed papers.”  (I was on vacation, and couldn’t spend the time on the computer whilst on vacation without having an unhappy wife.  And rightly so.)

shrunk responded:  “That’s a relief.  The blue butterfly was getting hungry.”    (The “blue butterfly” is a guy named Calilasseia or, affectionately, cali.   He is their knight in shining armor.  He SAVES all of the lesser evolutionauts from skeptics, and can answer any question in the universe.   I love those guys.  The more educated, the harder they fall.)  More of their ranting invitations: “Your fanboy, Jerry, was little more than an appetizer to him.  If he doesn’t get some fresh meat soon, we’ll have to feed him one of ourselves….” and:  “Seems Dr. Steve is a little scared about taking up the challenge,  I wonder why?”  and: (Beware the blue butterfly)You seem to think you know what you are talking about, so feel free to come and speak to people that do know what they are talking about.”  Now, wouldn’t these invitations make one feel just wonderful about coming on site, and discussing science with these people?

At any rate, I was invited! In the most unfriendly way imaginable.  But I love a good challenge, I am never concerned that I can’t best the “smartest” evolutionauts.  The problem is they are so indoctrinated and  they don’t know when they have been pwned. They think they win every battle, no matter how badly they perform. The lesser evolutionauts always cheer on the big guys as if they wiped out the bad guys….like me. The evolutionauts were rubbing their hands so they could get to me, the writer of this blog, and really show me what a fool I had been in even trying.

Here are the questions posed by evocritic, copied from my site. These questions represent only a tiny number of the ones I actually posed.   But since I know in advance they will have no answers for these questions, I thought it would be best not to add to their confusion by posting additional material.  These should suffice as a starter.  It will be interesting to see what they can come up with as answers.  Actually, I already know. By the way, evocritic has changed his email address.  I cannot contact him anymore.  Could that be because his personal communications were breached by evolutionauts at richarddawkins.net? I would think so.  Why else would he make the change.  Did he receive threatening emails like I did?  Maybe he will contact me so I can find out.   If you read this evocritic…..Anyway, the questions are very specific, and to the point.  It’s not difficult at all to discern what information would answer these questions.  So, I will let you be the judge.  Did the fearsome “blue butterfly” answer ANY of the questions? Did any of the the other evolutionauts? They sure wrote a lot of material.  The questions are:

 

Question #1. Eye Evolution
Evolutionists say that eyes evolved using 100,000 to 500,000 mutations (generations). Since eyes have a small number of parts, let’s say thirty, the question here would be: How do the mutations divvy up among the eye parts. Did 20,000 mutations form the retina and it’s 130 million cells? Were the 20,000 mutations working like a team, each mutation knowing what its job was and what the last mutation accomplished in making retinal cells? What about the visual cortex and thalamus? How many mutations were required to evolve these, and did the mutation work like a team here? While your at it you can provide me with some mutations that would form retina or iris cells? good luck

250px-Enamelorgan11-17-05Question #2

Maxillary and mandibular teeth: It is also not even imaginable that maxillary teeth could form through mutations and natural selection, and articulate like perfect puzzle pieces with mandibular jaw teeth. The maxillary teeth mutations would have to know what the mandibular teeth mutations were doing to an exact degree. That would require intelligence, and evolutionists say there is no intelligence. You would have to believe in miracles to go for this one, which would make evolution no more than a religion.

Question #3

Add to that the fact that humans have primary(children’s) teeth, an entire separate set that fit the mouth size of the young of our species, also with perfect matching of the anatomy of the maxillary teeth with the mandibular, and you have a nightmare for evolutionists! How did the mutations know that the younger of the species needs smaller more suitable teeth, someone pls provide physical evidence, not just stories, I’ve heard too many stories.

Question #4

Essentially, if heart/lung and eye systems evolved, the pre-functioning organs would be no more than useless tumors. Species would have to carry around these useless tumors for hundreds of thousands or millions of years before they would become functioning organs. What force would cause these useless tumors to continue to evolve into the incredibly complex organs represented by heart/lung and eye systems?

In answering these questions, the evolutionauts at  www. richarddawkins.net used mostly ad hominem attacks, demeaned the questions, which are obviously good ones, or answered the questions with anatomy and genetics lessons of animals that are currently living. The few responses that had anything to do with evolution had nothing to do with the questions posed.  The questions were absolutely never addressed, with one weak exception.

Cali is the perfect example of an ev-illusionist.  He doesn’t answer any questions I pose, but he has his congregation thoroughly convinced that he has.  He has fooled them once, and once that has been done successfully, the congregation will accept anything he says as fact. Any non-answer is an answer. He gives lots of “peer reviewed” papers that are supposedly answers for the questions posed, but none are. The abstracts give away the information in the larger body of the papers, and they are mostly conjecture and anatomy/genetics lessons, nothing more. Cali constantly asks if I read these papers, which is nothing more than a distraction from his failure at being able to answer.   I don’t waste a response. He then says I don’t answer his questions.

by Calilasseia » Fri May 08, 2009 3:49 pm

(MEANINGLESS PERSONAL ATTACK) Oh look, someone else who hasn’t read a biology textbook.Come back when you have. Only we prefer it when posters possess at least the basics with respect to real scientific knowledge.

by justwondering » Fri May 08, 2009 4:16 pm

(STRAWMAN): Is this someone else who believes evolution means an organism one day decides it’s going to grow legs and throw off its fins? Yeah that requires intelligence . . . of the organism that is. I feel a Calilasseia spanking coming on. Everyone put on your hazmat suits.

by DoctorE » Fri May 08, 2009 3:57 pm

Flodding bs here eh… How come people that believe in bs think they are ID…?… ohhh sorry it’s crystal clear why.

by Vaz The Spaz » Fri May 08, 2009 4:25 pm

Dude, cali is worse then an atomic bomb. [ME: Scary!]

Calilasseia arrives on the scene.  Boy am I scared.  Cali has a modus operandi the is typical of evolutionauts, but he is much more forceful.  Hence all of the respect from his colleagues. He uses stock strategy to attack his enemies.  And I am one for certain.  I have divvied his routine into several categories.  He repeats his attacks over an over, and each communications is in one of these categories.

(MEANINGLESS PERSONAL ATTACK)

(REFERS ME TO SOME OTHER PAPERS OR BOOKS. HAS NO ANSWER HIMSELF.)

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION)

(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION)

I have placed these labels in his dialogue so you will be able to understand his strategy.

by Calilasseia » Fri May 08, 2009 5:43 pm

Let’s take a look at this shall we? [ME: The A-bomb arrives. Shudder shudder. The jig is up!  He writes like he is going to knock the hell out of the questions.]

evocritic wrote:Maxillary and mandibular teeth: It is also not even imaginable that maxillary teeth could form through mutations and natural selection, and articulate like perfect puzzle pieces with mandibular jaw teeth.”

(MEANINGLESS PERSONAL ATTACK) Only unimaginable to someone who hasn’t paid attention in a science class. (REFERS ME TO SOME OTHER PAPERS OR BOOKS. HAS NO ANSWER HIMSELF.) Indeed, there is a book entitled The Origin and Evolution of the Human Dentition by W. K. Gregory, that was published in 1922.[ME: That should be a fascinating read. 1922?  At my local Barnes and Noble?] A more recent work is Development and Evolution of Dentition Patterns and Their Genetic Basis by Z. Zhao, K. M. Weiss and D. W. Stock (paper published in 2000). Looks like the scientific literature disagrees with you.  Indeed, performing a search on PubMed for “evolution of dentition” will yield no less than one thousand, three hundred and five scientific papers on the subject. I suppose all of the authors of these papers are lying, are they?

[ME: Just a note on “peer reviewed” papers in this “science” since the subject is brought up so many times: A major foundation of evolution is “peer reviewed” papers. These papers usually entail articles written by evolution biologists on subjects that no one who ever lived or lives on the face of the earth has the answer to. Such as the evolution of teeth. How were teeth “invented”? How did things go from “no teeth” to “teeth”? Why did that happen at all? And how did mutations form the complex dental designs we have today as humans? How do the cells that form teeth (ameloblasts and odontoblasts, et al) “know” just where they should be so they could do their job? How did they know just exactly when to start and stop their knitting of enamel and dentin so the teeth could form just the correct anatomy and locate themselves in just the correct places, with just the right orientation? How did the upper teeth evolve to exactly match the lower teeth like perfect puzzle pieces, especially when different gene pathways formed upper teeth and lower teeth?  This is an elephant, not a monkey, on the back of evolution that cannot be ignored or removed. And, of course, it isn’t ignored by bio-evolution’s writers. One writer, of course there had to be a first, wrote a paper on how he thought teeth evolved. “Teeth came from fish, who had simpler dentition. Then they evolved into more complex…….” Of course the stories are made up, then “peer reviewed” by other evo-biologists. More papers are written. Species are cited, information layered. “These early fish had teeth that……”  Paper piles on top of paper piles; the story is told and retold so many times, it becomes truth.   On Google, there are over 1300 references to “peer reviewed papers describing the evolution of the dentition. And, now these papers are cited as evidence. Papers written about the evidence actually become the evidence.  So, if anyone asks, how did teeth evolve, they are referred to the piles of “peer reviewed” papers on the subject. And this house of cards is the “evidence”.  And if you speak up, you are challenging “science”, wonderful biologists, and thousands of “peer reviewed” papers. By questioning these papers, evolutionauts say you are calling lots of brilliant evolution biologists “liars”. They are not liars, they are part of a massive form of group psychology.  One evolutionaut boosts another.  Every time a paper is written, and the group bestows adulation on the writer, more papers are in the works… for both the eager worshipers and the writer.  Who doesn’t love adulation? Back to cali.)

Here’s one of those papers:

A Curriculum Vitae Of Teeth: Evolution, Generation, Regeneration by Despina S. Koussoulakou, Lukas H. Margaritis and Stauros L. Koussoulakos, International Journal of Biological Sciences, 5(3):, 226-243 (24th February 2009) (full paper downloadable from here).

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): Koussoulakou et al, 2009 wrote:The ancestor of recent vertebrate teeth was a tooth-like structure on the outer body surface of jawless fishes. Over the course of 500,000,000 years of evolution, many of those structures migrated into the mouth cavity. In addition, the total number of teeth per dentition generally decreased and teeth morphological complexity increased.

(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION): Teeth form mainly on the jaws within the mouth cavity through mutual, delicate interactions between dental epithelium and oral ectomesenchyme. These interactions involve spatially restricted expression of several, teeth-related genes and the secretion of various transcription and signaling factors. Congenital disturbances in tooth formation, acquired dental diseases and odontogenic tumors affect millions of people and rank human oral pathology as the second most frequent clinical problem. On the basis of substantial experimental evidence and advances in bioengineering, many scientists strongly believe that a deep knowledge of the evolutionary relationships and the cellular and molecular mechanisms regulating the morphogenesis of a given tooth in its natural position, in vivo, will be useful in the near future to prevent and treat teeth pathologies and malformations and for in vitro and in vivo teeth tissue regeneration.

(REFERS ME TO SOME OTHER PAPERS OR BOOKS. HAS NO ANSWER HIMSELF.) Oh look. A paper that not only describes the evolutionary background behind the origin of dentition, but describes how that knowledge will be pressed into useful medical service.

Let’s take a peek inside this paper …

Koussoulakou et al, 2009 wrote:1. Introduction

(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION): A huge amount of literature is devoted to the origin, evolution, organogenesis, pathology and therapy of teeth. There have been tremendous advances in recent years towards a better understanding of the regulation of teeth development [1, 2]. The immense interest in this subject is quite justified since, apart from the intrinsic scientific merit, teeth congenital abnormalities account for 20% of all inherited disorders, whereas, oral pathology occupies a leading position in the list of human diseases [3, 4].

Teeth are highly mineralized appendages found in the entrance of the alimentary canal of both invertebrates and vertebrates. They are associated mainly with prehension and processing of food, but they also frequently serve other functions, such as defense, display of dominance and phonetic articulation in humans. Generally, when speaking of teeth we usually refer to the dentition of vertebrates. (HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): Teeth with the basic microscopic anatomy similar to that of recent vertebrates first appeared at Ordovicium, approx. 460 million years ago. Some jawless fish developed superficial, dermal structures known as odontodes [5, 6] (Fig. 1). Those small tooth-like structures were located outside the mouth and served various functions, including protection, sensation and hydrodynamic advantage. The encroachment of odontodes into the oropharyngeal cavity created the buccal teeth, which covered the entire surface and later were localized to the jaw margins. Dietary habits and ecological adaptations have driven the teeth of vertebrates to acquire numerous anatomical forms and shapes, as represented by incisors, canines, premolars and molars [7]. [ME: Evolutionauts think that if it’s written in a “peer reviewed” paper, it’s true! No time-wasting explanations needed. No need to answer the questions posed. Evidence has nothing to do with evidence. It has to do with peer reviewed papers. THAT is their evidence.]

(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION): The main body of a tooth consists of a calcified tissue called the dentine, which is secreted by odontoblasts, cells of cranial neural crest (cnc) origin [8]. Dentine is composed of collagen, dentine sialophosphoprotein, dentine matrix protein and hydroxylapatite. Dentine surrounds the pulp, which is rich in fibroblast-like cells, blood vessels and nerves. The upper part of the dentine is usually covered by a layer of enamel, which is secreted by ameloblasts, oral epithelial cells. Enamel, the hardest tissue of the human body, is collagen-free. Its main proteins are amelogenin (90%), ameloblastin, enamelin and tuftelin. The root firmly supports the tooth within an alveolar socket by means of the periodontium. The visible part of a tooth in the oral cavity is referred to as the clinical crown [7]. Teeth are generated through highly orchestrated mutual inductive interactions between two major cell types: stomodeal ectoderm and cranial, neural crest-derived ectomesenchyme cells. In some animals the endodermal epithelium directly participates in teeth formation [9]. Morphological differences between individual teeth of a dentition arise mainly from differences in the spatiotemporal expression of several, odontogenic genes. These genes encode transcription factors that regulate the synthesis of various signaling factors [10]. These signaling factors mediate inductive interactions between the odontogenic tissue layers and affect cell multiplication, cell death and cytodifferentiation [11]. (HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): How these inductive interactions were modified during evolution to generate the numerous anatomical features of teeth is a major interest in evolutionary biology. Interestingly, genes and signaling factors playing leading roles in teeth morphogenesis are also involved in the development of many other organs in various animals [10, 12].

Crap.

(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION): You do realise that plasticity of dentition is one of the reasons that Dr Humphrey Greenwood undertook a wholesale revision of the Family Cichlidae, a taxonomic Family of over 2,000 species of tropical fish, as far back as 1977? Because he realised that in numerous Genera in this Family, tooth shape is subject to modification as the fish develops from fry to adult, as a result of the mechanisms by which these fishes acquire their food in some environments? Indeed, in quite a few fishes, precise alignment of dentition is absent – the classic examples being the various limnivorous catfishes of the Family Loricariidae, whose mouths have evolved into sucking discs, and whose teeth therefore do not need to mesh with each other. Some Characoid fishes only have teeth in one jaw. Birds, of course, dispensed with teeth altogether, though there is an interesting scientific paper in the literature that demonstrates something rather interesting – birds still possess the genes that code for tooth development and morphogenesis, but these genes are switched off in bird lineages. However, that same paper describes how scientists have been able to switch those genes back on experimentally and examine the resulting tooth development. Which, lo and behold, exhibits a high degree of morphological correlation with the dentition of reptiles, with a striking degree of similarity with the modern Alligator mississipiensis (which itself is a member of an ancient clade). The relevant paper is:

The Development Of Archosaurian First-Generation Teeth In A Chicken Mutant by Matthew P. Harris, Sean M. Hasso, Mark J. W. Ferguson and John F. Fallon, Current Biology, 16: 371-377 (21st February 2006) (Full paper downloadable from here):

Harris et al, 2006 wrote:Summary

(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION)Modern birds do not have teeth. Rather, they develop a specialized keratinized structure, called the rhamphotheca, that covers the mandible, maxillae, and premaxillae. Although recombination studies have shown that the avian epidermis can respond to tooth-inductive cues from mouse or lizard oral mesenchyme and participate in tooth formation [1, 2], attempts to initiate tooth development de novo in birds have failed. Here, we describe the formation of teeth in the talpid2 chicken mutant, including the developmental processes and early molecular changes associated with the formation of teeth. Additionally, we show recapitulation of the early events seen in talpid2 after in vivo activation of b-catenin in wild-type embryos. We compare the formation of teeth in the talpid2 mutant with that in the alligator and show the formation of decidedly archosaurian (crocodilian) first-generation teeth in an avian embryo. The formation of teeth in the mutant is coupled with alterations in the specification of the oral/aboral boundary of the jaw. (HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): We propose an epigenetic model of the developmental modification of dentition in avian evolution; in this model, changes in the relative position of a lateral signaling center over competent odontogenic mesenchyme led to loss of teeth in avians while maintaining tooth developmental potential.

(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION): Oh look. Left over genes in birds can be switched on to produce teeth. Literally, in this case, hen’s teeth. An observation that makes perfect sense from the standpoint of evolution, but is farcical nonsense from the standpoint of “design”.

[ME: Did the blue butterfly answer the question that he rewrote at the beginning of this section: “evocritic wrote:Maxillary and mandibular teeth: It is also not even imaginable that maxillary teeth could form through mutations and natural selection, and articulate like perfect puzzle pieces with mandibular jaw teeth.” Not even close.]

evocritic wrote:That would require intelligence

(REFERS ME TO SOME OTHER PAPERS OR BOOKS. HAS NO ANSWER HIMSELF.)None needed. Now go and read those 1,305 papers on “evolution of dentition” and learn why.

evocritic wrote:and evolutionists

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER): Oh dear, not this tiresome canard again … I’ll give you the same education that I dispense to every propagandist for reality-denial doctrine that erects this canard, viz:

There is no such thing as an “evolutionist”. There are evolutionary biologists, namely the specialist scientific professionals who devote decades of their lives to studying and researching their particular field, and those outside that professional scientific remit that accept the evidence-based, reality-based case for evolutionary hypotheses. The word “evolutionist” is a discoursive elision erected by propagandists for mythology-based doctrines, with the deliberate intent of erecting the specious notion that there exists a “symmetry” between evidence-based science and assertion-laden doctrine. NO such “symmetry” exists. Evolution is an evidence based scientific theory that includes direct experimental test and validation of its postulates, whereas the doctrines erected by carping critics thereof are based upon unsupported blind assertions. Moreover, does my giving credence to the theory of gravity make me a “gravitationist”? Does my giving credence to electromagnetic theory make me an “electromagnetist”? Does my giving credence to the microbe theory of disease make me a “microbist”? [ME: So, what does the blue butterfly think evolutions believers that are no graduate biologists should be called? The congregation? This paragraph is why I coined the word “evolutionaut”, a combination of evolution and astronaut. Evos are so sensitive about being called “evolutionists”. I have been scolded so many times for using this word. Funny how many evolutionauts think “evolutionaut” is a pejorative. They call  skeptics creatards. I get the first part of the word: from creationism. I wonder what the last part comes from. Hmmmm. ](MEANINGLESS PERSONAL ATTACK) The absurdity of this should be self-evident to anyone who bothered to pay attention in a real science class.

evocritic wrote:say there is no intelligence.

(MEANINGLESS PERSONAL ATTACK) There certainly isn’t in creationist circles.

(REFERS ME TO SOME OTHER PAPERS OR BOOKS. HAS NO ANSWER HIMSELF.): Oh, and those 1,305 papers say that none is needed for tooth development. [ME: Gosh, if all of those papers say intelligence isn’t needed, it MUST be true. Wow! Evidence is so easy. Just write it!] (DEMEAN THE QUESTION OR  QUESTIONER) All that’s needed is appropriate genes and regulatory mechanisms. Which we learn about by paying attention to the reality of developmental biology, instead of rectally extracted blind assertions by propagandists for doctrine.

evocritic wrote:You would have to believe in miracles to go for this one

(REFERS ME TO SOME OTHER PAPERS OR BOOKS. HAS NO ANSWER HIMSELF.): Care to point to which of those 1,305 papers on “evolution of dentition” that are listed at PubMed Central invokes miracles for this? Take your time on this one.

evocritic wrote:which would make evolution no more than a religion.

(REFERS ME TO SOME OTHER PAPERS OR BOOKS. HAS NO ANSWER HIMSELF.):  Crap. Because unlike any religion, evolutionary biology performs experimental tests to verify its hypotheses. You are aware that numerous scientific papers containing said experimental test and verification of evolutionary concepts and hypotheses exist? Or then again, perhaps you aren’t, and if this is the case, I suggest you learn this basic fact quickly.

evocritic wrote:Add to that the fact that humans have primary(children’s) teeth, an entire separate set that fit the mouth size of the young of our species, also with perfect matching of the anatomy of the maxillary teeth with the mandibular, and you have a nightmare for evolutionists!

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER): Oh this would be a “nightmare” in much the same way as Ray Comfort’s banana …

(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION)You do realise that cartilaginous fishes produce teeth on a continuous basis throughout their lives and replace them often? I suspect that even a cursory search of the scientific literature would yield that the same underlying genetic and regulatory mechanisms are at work. Indeed, referring above to the Koussoulakou et al paper I dealt with above, we find this:

Koussoulakou et al, 2009 wrote:The plethora of molecules involved [e.g., fibroblast growth factors (FGFs), bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs), sonic hedgehog (SHH), wingless integrated (WNTs)] and the complexity of interactions (e.g., activation, inhibition, regulatory loops) inevitably lead with some frequency to homeostatic disorganization, which results in congenital abnormalities, such as tooth agenesis, which is the most commonly inherited disorder [3, 4]. Most human congenital teeth malformations are caused by mutations in developmentally regulated genes [6]. [ME: So these are the bad mutations.  Where are the good ones? A discussion on the good mutations should be just as easy as one on the bad ones.]

(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION)The fact that, an embryonic tooth bud can develop in vitro [13] indicates that the expression of teeth-related genes is not restricted only in vivo. Mutations that alter teeth act at many levels of control, i.e., the development of the embryonic bud, the morphogenesis of the bell stage, the production of enamel and dentin and the formation of the roots [1, 2]. The mechanisms of this genetic control are surely encoded at the molecular and submolecular levels. These mechanisms are beginning to be studied. The favored animal model for such studies is the common laboratory mouse, since teeth development in mice is similar to that of man. Additionally, the same set of genes functions in mouse as in man during teeth development; there are only minor differences in the expression patterns of these genes, and mutations in counterpart genes cause similar defective phenotypes (e.g., mouse Tabby and human EDA) [14].

Oh look. Common ancestry and homology wins again.[Yay!] That paper continues with:

Koussoulakou et al, 2009 wrote:
2. Origin and Evolution of Teeth

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): 2.1 The ancestors of teeth were dermal appendages

(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION)In a few organisms there is substantial evidence to suggest that teeth may have derived from both ectoderm and endoderm [20, 21].(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): In most cases, teeth evolved from scale-like epidermal structures, the odontodes, which “migrated” into the mouth after enough mutations. (MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION)This process is visible in modern sharks, which have placoid scales on the skin that grade into the teeth on the jaws. (HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): In certain cases, however, dermal denticles did not transform into teeth and underwent independent evolution [22]. Natural selection has favored toothed organisms, which have a major advantage in their ability to capture and process food. (MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION)Teeth can be classified into three types, based on where they are formed: jaw, mouth and pharyngeal. (HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): The close relationship between past and present teeth can be demonstrated by a phylogenetic analysis. Using this type of analysis, amelogenin appears to have been duplicated from SPARC (SPARC, secreted protein, acidic, rich in cysteine), 630,000,000 years ago, i.e., long before the Cambrian explosion [23, 24].

2.2. During evolution the number of teeth per dentition decreased

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): Variations in tooth number may represent an important factor for mammalian diversification. The evolutionary pathway from fish to reptiles to mammals is characterized by a reduction in the number of teeth (from polyodonty to oligodonty) and of their generations (from polyphyodonty to di- and/or monophyodonty) as well as an increase in morphological complexity of the teeth (from homodonty to heterodonty) [7, 25]. (MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION)Some organisms (e.g., killer whales, rats, elephants) develop their dentition only once in their life; others (e.g., turtles, birds, toothless whales, anteaters) have lost their dentition and are characterized by adontia. Adontia in many organisms is considered to be secondary, since the embryo possesses tooth germs that undergo apoptosis before birth [26, 27]. (HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION):Region-specific tooth loss has been a common trend in vertebrate evolution. Some organisms retained a high number of teeth, however: Opossum (50 teeth), sirenoids (possess 44 molars) and some dolphins (bearing more than 200 relatively similar teeth, having thus lost heterodonty and returned to homodonty). Interestingly, some teeth that were lost during evolution reappeared in an atavistic sense [28], thus violating the “law” of irreversibility in evolution. If we could understand the mechanism of spontaneous re-acquisition of lost properties, we might be able to apply this knowledge to the clinical, biological restoration of lost teeth. Along those lines, understanding the rules of polyphyodonty will surely support tooth regenerative efforts. How and why evolutionary tooth loss occurs is not known, but several interesting hypotheses have been proposed. For example, there could be a loss of a tooth-type-specific initiation message, attenuation of the inductive and/or inhibitory signal or a reduction in the concentration of required proteins. (MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION)In support of this last idea, the lack of canines and premolars in the mouse upper diastema has been attributed to the weak expression of the PAX9 gene [29, 30].

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): Changes in the number and morphology of teeth may reflect a significant factor in the generation of new species in mammals. The most common feature is the loss of various teeth, perhaps as a result of a mutation in tooth-related genes. (MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION)For example, rodents lack lateral incisors, canines and premolars. Sheep have lost their upper incisors and the canines. An analysis of mutant mice phenotypes has clearly indicated that specific mutations (e.g., GLI2-/-,GLΙ3+/-) cause phenotypes that resemble several ungulates that lack all upper incisors [3, 29]. (HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): It is worth noting that in placental mammals teeth tend to disappear over the course of evolution in an order that is opposite the order of their appearance during eruption [7, 9]. A reaction/diffusion model of morphogenesis has been used to explain this phenomenon. According to this model, repeated structures (e.g., vertebrae, phalanges, feathers, color patterns, teeth) arise as a result of the coordination of two molecules, an activator and an inhibitor. Two well known examples of such interacting molecules are FGF8/BMP4 [31] and ectodin/ BMP4 [32]. Teeth located at a distance from the center of the morphogenetic field tend to disappear due to field attenuation [33].

2.3. Evolution favored an increase in teeth complexity

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION):Diet and mastication are regarded as central factors in teeth evolution. There is a strong correlation between teeth form (e.g., cardiform, villiform, incisor, canine, molariform) and feeding habits. During evolution, mammals, which originated from reptile-like ancestors, (Diapsida), developed in each side of their skull two openings (temporal fenestrae) behind the orbit that are still present in a modified form in modern mammals. This opening has been used as a rigid place for the attachment of powerful masticatory muscles. This evolutionary event allowed a much more efficient exploitation of the food caloric energy needed to support high levels of activity. Cynodonts (more advanced, mammal-like reptiles) changed their dentition from one designed for catching and holding prey before swallowing it whole to one designed for better mastication of food, with specialized, molar-like teeth endowed with randomly placed enameloid pustules [34].

(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION)The most important anatomic and functional feature of the masticatory surface of an erupted tooth is the cusps [35]. Cusp number, morphology, topology and orientation are species- specific; these features also differ between teeth of the same mammal. Those disparities are due to differential, spatiotemporal cell multiplication and programmed cell death of the inner enamel epithelium cells during embryonic and post-embryonic development [11].

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): The evolution of the mammalian jaw and teeth created occlusal surfaces that are adequate for a great variety of foods. [ME: Just astounding how the word “created” just keeps cropping up in these “peer reviewed” papers.] For example, Triconodont organisms were endowed with teeth bearing three major cusps in a (more or less) straight line (Fig. 2) and other smaller cusps on an external, rounded cingulum. This arrangement increases the ability of the teeth to crush and grind food, thus giving rise to mastication. In Symmetrodont organisms (extinct mammals), the central cusp was separated from the other two outer cusps so that a triangle was formed on the occlusal surface of the upper molars; later, comparable, geometrically complementary structures were formed on the occlusal surface of the lower molars too, resulting in a dramatic increase in the masticatory efficiency of the molars [34, 35].  [ME: I think he is so into his papers, the blue butterfly has no idea he completely forgot what the questions were. Gawd, there are only a few.  And think of all of the time the “blue butterfly” spent researching all of this stuff.  He rewrites the questions near his paper quotes to help us remember what they were, then ignores them completely  in the answers.  I wonder why.]

evocritic wrote:how did the mutations know that the younger of the species needs smaller more suitable teeth, someone pls provide physical evidence, not just stories, ive heard too many stories.

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): How about FGF8 and BMP4, as cited in the above paper by Koussoulatou et al? That “physical” enough for you, namely well defined molecular morphogens? [ME: Well, that certainly answers that question. Now on to the next.}

evocritic wrote: Essentially, if heart/lung and eye systems evolved, the pre-functioning organs would be no more than useless tumors.

(REFERS ME TO SOME OTHER PAPERS OR BOOKS. HAS NO ANSWER HIMSELF.):  Worthless argument from incredulity. This is merely a rehash of the stupid “what use is half an eye” nonsense so beloved of creationists. [ME: More accurately, what use is one hundred thousandth of an eye since according to Dawkins, eyes evolved in 250,000 steps. “A very short time.” AN EYE in case you evolutionats want to bring up LS spots.] I’ve presented a scientific paper on eye morphogenesis and evolution from the peer reviewed scientific literature on several occasions here if you go and search for it. Look up the Pax6 gene.  [ME: Look up a genetic blueprint that forms eyes today? What does that have to do with how it got here?]

evocritic wrote:Species would have to carry around these useless tumors for hundreds of thousands or millions of years before they would become functioning organs.

(MEANINGLESS PERSONAL ATTACK) Do learn some basic developmental biology, won’t you? (MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION): There are numerous organisms extant today that don’t have these. Indeed, I can think of two entire taxonomic Phyla that don’t need them. Namely the Porifera and the Cnidaria. [ME: And what does that have to do with the evolution of a permenent set of teeth below a full set of primary teeth? Some species today don’t have this arrangement? Ergo…..never mind.}

Oh, and I presented a paper on heart evolution some time ago. Namely:

Cardiac Chamber Formation: Development, Genes And Evolution by Antoon F. M. Moorman and Vincent M. Christoffels, Physiologcial Review, 83: 1223-1267 (2003)

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): Moorman & Christoffels, 2003 wrote:Concepts of cardiac development have greatly influenced the description of the formation of the four-chambered vertebrate heart. Traditionally, the embryonic tubular heart is considered to be a composite of serially arranged segments representing adult cardiac compartments. Conversion of such a serial arrangement into the parallel arrangement of the mammalian heart is difficult to understand. Logical integration of the development of the cardiac conduction system into the serial concept has remained puzzling as well. [ME: Hey, this guy agrees with me!]

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): Therefore, the current description needed reconsideration, and we decided to evaluate the essentialities of cardiac design, its evolutionary and embryonic development, and the molecular pathways recruited to make the four-chambered mammalian heart. The three principal notions taken into consideration are as follows. 1) Both the ancestor chordate heart and the embryonic tubular heart of higher vertebrates consist of poorly developed and poorly coupled “pacemaker-like” cardiac muscle cells with the highest pacemaker activity at the venous pole, causing unidirectional peristaltic contraction waves. 2) From this heart tube, ventricular chambers differentiate ventrally and atrial chambers dorsally. The developing chambers display high proliferative activity and consist of structurally well-developed and well-coupled muscle cells with low pacemaker activity, which permits fast conduction of the impulse and efficacious contraction. The forming chambers remain flanked by slowly proliferating pacemaker-like myocardium that is temporally prevented from differentiating into chamber myocardium. 3) The trabecular myocardium proliferates slowly, consists of structurally poorly developed, but well-coupled, cells and contributes to the ventricular conduction system. The atrial and ventricular chambers of the formed heart are activated and interconnected by derivatives of embryonic myocardium. The topographical arrangement of the distinct cardiac muscle cells in the forming heart explains the embryonic electrocardiogram (ECG), does not require the invention of nodes, and allows a logical transition from a peristaltic tubular heart to a synchronously contracting four-chambered heart. This view on the development of cardiac design unfolds fascinating possibilities for future research. [ME: And what about the zero to tubular heart stage? How were pumps invented, when none existed on the planet earth?  Shall we just ignore that part? Wouldn’t that have to be a tumor until it began pumping? And what did it pump? Why did it? How did it oxygenate? This paper is a great example of a story that is peer reviewed. So it is now not a paper, but evidence!]

(REFERS ME TO SOME OTHER PAPERS OR BOOKS. HAS NO ANSWER HIMSELF.):  You can have fun wading through the next 42 pages or so of that paper, that covers the extant research.

evocritic wrote:What force would cause these useless tumors to continue to evolve into the incredibly complex organs represented by heart/lung and eye systems?

(REFERS ME TO SOME OTHER PAPERS OR BOOKS. HAS NO ANSWER HIMSELF.):  Try reading the scientific literature and find out. I’ve just given you one paper to read above with respect to the heart. I’m sure PubMed Central will have a LOT of papers on this topic for you to wade through.

evocritic wrote:Eye Evolution

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER): Oh look, it’s that tired old canard again …

evocritic wrote:Evolutionists

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER): Already educated you with respect to this discoursive elision …[ME: How about evolutionaut?]

evocritic wrote:say that eyes evolved using 100,000 to 500,000 mutations (generations).

(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION): Ahem. Your specious conflation of mutations with generations here is not only dishonest, but scientifically absurd. Not least in the light of the paper I presented elsewhere on these forums, which conclusively demonstrates that the Pax6 gene is the master control gene for eye morphogenesis. Oh, and I’ve performed the relevant search through genome databases and checked the homologies involved. [ME: Ahem blue butterfly. Listing the Pax6 gene as the current blueprint for visual systems has nothing to do with it’s evolution. How did we GET TO  the Pax6 gene? You can fool your friends. Not me. You rag on evocritic for being dishonest, when the person being dishonest is you.]

evocritic wrote:Since eyes have a small number of parts, let’s say thirty, the question here would be: How do the mutations divvy up among the eye parts. Did 20,000 mutations form the retina and it’s 130 million cells? Were the 20,000 mutations working like a team, each mutation knowing what its job was and what the last mutation accomplished in making retinal cells? What about the visual cortex and thalamus? How many mutations were required to evolve these, and did the mutation work like a team here? while your at it you can provide me with some mutations that would form retina or iris cells? good luck

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER)What a fatuously absurd account of the process. (READ PPRS) Once again, I suggest you read the real scientific literature instead of fabricating excremental garbage of this sort. Once again, you can look up Pax6. While you’re at it, you can look up the role of hedgehog signalling genes, (MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION) whose effects upon eye development have been studied extensively using the fish species Astyanax mexicanus, which has surface dwelling populations with fully functional eyes, and cave dwelling populations that have lost their eyes. Transpires that the only real difference between them from the standpoint of eye development is a mutation in shh that results in lens apoptosis in the embryo. 500,000 mutations my arse …[ME: Actually blue butterfly,  Dawkins himself provides the number of mutations required for the evolutin of eyes. So, bitch to him if you must.]

by Spearthrower » Fri May 08, 2009 7:20 pm

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER): Why would scientists even bother responding to this pap in the first place? It was answered decades ago, it’s not their fault if you are sucked into bullshit propaganda and make yourself seem foolish by trotting out antique arguments that have long been resolved.*shrug*Go and study.

by Calilasseia » Fri May 08, 2009 7:22 pm

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER): Let’s see if he studies those papers, shall we? Or will it be a case of “cue specious apologetic dismissal in 3 … 2 … 1 …” ?  [ME: Weren’t they pretty summed up here? You mean the actual papers have more?]

by Darwinsbulldog » Fri May 08, 2009 7:41 pm

Well, others, including Cali have left you adrift without a paddle evocritic. [ME: Victory is declared. Doesn’t matter that no questions were answered, it’s still a victory in the world of evolution.] I just want to ask you ONE question. Have you ever used your critical thinking on the existence of god, religion or creationism Have you ever known a believer or cleric try to disprove the existence of god? No That’s right, they never do. Ask yourself why.

[ME: He automatically reverts to the strawman argument: religion, which was never mentioned in any question.]

by BracesForImpact » Fri May 08, 2009 8:06 pm

It seems the bottom line is this. Nature is more creative than you, Evocritic. Just because you can’t imagine how it’s taken place doesn’t mean it’s a failure of evolutionary theory.

You’d think they’d learn from the whole Flagellum incident. [ME: Yea, the big Flagellum Incident at the Dover corral.]

by ADParker » Fri May 08, 2009 8:27 pm

evocritic wrote:Maxillary and mandibular teeth: It is also not even imaginable that maxillary teeth could form through mutations and natural selection, and articulate like perfect puzzle pieces with mandibular jaw teeth.

First things first: Welcome to the forum evocritic

[ME: Amazing that this evolutionaut is going to show evocritic and me how teeth evolved. He admittedly has no education in  regard to the dentition at all. But he demeans his was through a useless non-answer. Condescendingly.]

(DEMEAN Q or Q):Now we have the formalities out of the way:
Sorry evocritic, but some things need to be “debunked”, others just need to be laughed at. (Guess which one these from you are?

First order of business: As already noted, are you the author of this site:Ten Impossiblities of Evolution, or are you simply Cutting and pasting it’s canards DIRECTLY from there, without reference? That would be plagiarism.
(By the way; I get that in the web address you/they have “Evillusion” as one of those silly slurs; but I did find it amusing that both the address and page title also spelled “Impossibilities” wrong! [ME: Never accuse someone of missspellings to make them look stupid  unless you are a perfect speller yourself. And you forgot to spell check this answer. It’s chock full of misspellings.]

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER)::Interestingly the (Youtube) [Starts out with one right away!  It’s YouTube.] video that goes along with this drivel you posted tried to “ban” certain words being used in comments. What was interesting was that these words were not “fuck” and “dumbass” etc. but included names for well established logical Fallacies and the like! He tried to ban Formal logic terms!

[ME: no words were “banned” except in “tongue in cheek” fashion. Those tired trite words are best not used here.  But they can be.  I use them on this page because they are so prevalently used  in this discourse by evolutionauts.]

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER): Okay onto the teefs. [ME: Oh boy. Now we gets an education on the formation of “TEEFS” from a person who has none…education, that is.  And he cutely misspells teeth before the lecture.]

“It is also not even imaginable”: Okay so we start of with Richard Dawkins’ favourite; The Appeal to Personal Incredulity (Banned term!) A special subset of the Argument From Ignorance.
(DEMEAN Q) YOU (and the Dentist who made that site) can’t understand how it coulda (SP) happened; therefore Magic Man Dun (SP) it, (Variation of Banned term!) right?

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION):A big part of the error in your *ahem* reasoning there seems to be that you make the grossly fallacious mistake of assuming things as if some aspect is fixed, like the shape and size of the jaw, and the teeth all evolve to fit perfectly. NO; both the jaw, teeth, and the entire organism, evolved from ancestor organisms, all with different but quite functional eating apparatus. There is no big deal there at all! [ME: Right. The guy that has no dental education whatsoever let’s evocritic know that  it’s “no big deal at all”! All I can say is WOW. I just never cease to be astounded. He must have got that notion out of a peer reviewed paper!  Sorry, ADParker, teeth really ARE a huge deal. It’s just that they are so commonplace, you think they are easy.] (HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION):I see no problem with imagining the Primate jaw and tooth structure evolving slowly from ancestral origins, none. [NONE! Right. No problem.]

evocritic wrote:The maxillary teeth mutations would have to know what the mandiblular teeth mutations were doing to an exact degree.
(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): What?! No. What is it with your immediate assumption of intellectual properties?! Tiny little variations in BOTH the jaw and teeth (not to mention the entire organism) could easily do the job, given enough time. And the fits are hardly perfect. I know mine aren’t! [ME: The fits of maxillary teeth with mandibular are astounding. This person  has no idea and his lecture shows it.  The positioning of the teeth isn’t perfect in many adults, but the teeth themselves are an unbelievable fit, cusp to cusp, groove to groove, ridge to ridge.  Almost like machine made. ] And you as a dentist (I am going to assume that you are the author and not a plagiarizing pretender here) should bloody well know that! [ME: Ooh, he’s getting adamant and angry about his completely ignorant stance.  Never over commit. Remember that. ]

evocritic wrote:That would require intelligence, and evolutionists say there is no intelligence.

Yes your Straw Man (Banned term!) would probably require such a thing. Good thing we live in the real world eh?

evocritic wrote:You would have to believe in miracles to go for this one, which would make evolution no more than a religion.

evocritic wrote:Add to that the fact that humans have primary(children’s) teeth, an entire separate set that fit the mouth size of the young of our species, also with perfect matching of the anatomy of the maxillary teeth with the mandibular, and you have a nightmare for evolutionists! how did the mutations know that the younger of the species needs smaller more suitable teeth, someone pls provide physical evidence, not just stories, ive heard too many stories.

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER): That’s a funny little story yo got there doc! [ME: Actually a very good question. If you can’t answer, demean.]
(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION)It’s as if you think that “primary teeth” (and children probably) are something that evolved later than adults and their teeth! Like primary teeth were a later development or something!
Many animals grow multiple sets of teeth. Some unlike us can produce many sets as old ones wear out, and as the organism’s jaw develops. Nothing “miraculous” about later sets growing a little larger than the previous.

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER): This is just silly.

evocritic wrote:Essentially, if heart/lung and eye systems evolved, the pre-functioning organs would be no more than useless tumors.
Okay, so we skip back from the second page of this drive; (4b) to the first page.

(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION)Ah yes; pre-functioning organs. This is the good old classic caricature (banned word!) which assumes that evolution has a intended direction, a goal. That the human heart for instance grew stage by stage as useless pre-heart organs until acheiving it’s intened (SP) goal;{ME: Note how the guy that rags on a single misspelled word doesn’t spell check his own writing.] that of being a fully functioning human heart.

Which of course is simply inane: The heart for example can be reasily (SP) understood. It’s origins are that of a simple muscular tube (probably the entire body cavity of ancestral small worm-like organisms) which could simply sqeeze (SP) their bodily fluids (which became blood) in order to get the nutrients etc. it contained around the body. Modern worms still have such structures, and can pump their fluids in both direction. Later developments then included valves (for one way flow – important as complexity increases to ensure no back flow) [ME: Its important, so it evolved valves!] and separate chambers with more musculature to fascilitate (SP?) pumping the blood further around larger bodies. [ME: I am certain this is right out of a “peer reviewed” paper. What more evidence do we need?]

(REFERS ME TO SOME OTHER PAPERS OR BOOKS. HAS NO ANSWER HIMSELF.) This drivel from you is naive simplistic rubbish, so I kept it brief. But if you want something more “sciency” try this: Evolution of the Heart

evocritic wrote:Species would have to carry around these useless tumors for hundreds of thousands or millions of years before they would become functioning organs. What force would cause these useless tumors to continue to evolve into the incredibly complex organs represented by heart/lung and eye systems?

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER): All of this of course becomes completely irrelevant when you get over the childish notion of “useless tumor” organs.

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): Primitive Hearts, lungs and all manner of other organs etc. Can and do function perfectly well, in the organisms that use them. At (almost) no point do they carry around useless organs. Unless they become vestigial, then they tend to atrophy over time, and perhaps disappear, [ME: Oh they can be useless tumors.  They are useless AFTER they evolved, and were on the way “out”, but they couldn’t be usless before they became functional on the way “in”.  Interesting.] or become adapted to fit other purposes. An example of this is the human Tail bone, which can and does at times, produce a human with a functioning tail! If GodDidIt (Banned word!) then this makes no sense at all. But if we evolved from “monkeys” (sorry, couldn’t resist. I of course mean tailed primate ancestors, of all modern primates including humans and monkeys) then it’s only to be expected. At least if that was also as the product of undirected, mindless evolutionary design. (IF an intelligent agent designed us from the Monkey stock of DNA, then leaving this atavism would just be plain weird and a sure sign of very sloppy work indeed!)

evocritic wrote:Eye Evolution
Evolutionists say that eyes evolved using 100,000 to 500,000 mutations (generations).
“Evolutionist” is a silly word (even though some use it anyway ) Makes it sound like a belief system, no different than the dogmatic religious “faiths.” Which is such nonsense.

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): Actually they say that “the eye” has evolved independently (from some original photoreceptive cell probably) at least 40 times in the Earth’s organic history. [ME: “They say?” That is real science at work. I wonder who counted the “40 times”.  What species did the evolving?  Did fossils show species that had no eyes, then evolved eyes?  And can’t ADParker figure out that there had to tens to hundreds of thousands of multicellular species when these eyes supposedly evolved. The forty that evolved eyes couldn’t pass them on to the other species that were eyeless at the time, and were also common ancestors for their progeny. So, forty would yeild few eyed species today.]

evocritic wrote:Since eyes have a small number of parts, let’s say thirty, the question here would be: How do the mutations divvy up among the eye parts. Did 20,000 mutations form the retina and it’s 130 million cells?
This one of those times that it truly saddens me to realise that this is NOT the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER): Amazing how ‘you’ can speak with such authority on evolution, when your arguments display an atrocious level of ignorance of it at the most fundamental of levels! [ME: This from a guy who admits no biological education.]
Again we get a silly caricature of evolution as a slow building up of a SINGLE organism, as if the “evolution of man” is similar to building one out of Lego bricks. [ME: Obviously AdParker doens’t understand the rather basic question. No “single organism” was mentioned.]

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): Evolution happens over generations of differing organisms. The more recent “more primitive” (to our eyes anyway) organisms had eyes with just the same parts as we do. The mutations you speak of simply changed their structures slightly. Resulting (in the cases that led to us at least) in slight improvements in focus, colour and motion perception and so on.
The mutations WERE NOT individual complete parts (Lego blocks) which all came together to make a human being or human eye! That’s so utterly foolish and silly that it’s just plain delusional! [ME: Isn’t it amazing what they “know”? How do they know this stuff? I mean “eyes evolved 40 times?”. And if eyes WERE NOT Lego’s (built up mutation by mutation), what were they?” ADParker just doesn’t let us know. Again, he has no idea what the question is.  Individual complete parts? Who said that? Oh, ADParker.]

evocritic wrote:Were the 20,000 mutations working like a team, each mutation knowing what its job was and what the last mutation accomplished in making retinal cells? What about the visual cortex and thalamus? How many mutations were required to evolve these, and did the mutation work like a team here?

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER): What utter nonsense you spew!

evocritic wrote:while your at it you can provide me with some mutations that would form retina or iris cells? good luck

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER): Hey! Do we actually have a tiny part of your first post that wasn’t a cut and paste job?! Well golly gee! Just as inane and misguided as the rest of course.

evocritic wrote:NO VIDEO RESPONSES, ANSWER MY POINTS WITH WORDS AND REAL EVIDENCE. THE FOOLISH ONLY INSULT, REAL SCIENTISTS SHOULD GIVE ANSWERS AND REFUTE. HERE’S SOME MORE FOR YOU TO CHEW ON, IF YOU DARE ANSWER.
Yet, the site you copied that drivel from was full of videos. Hmm, double standard?

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER): The problem, you see evocritic, is that your cut & paste drivel is just so utterly poor and bereft of anything of any merit, that there is practically nothing there to refute or debunk! The entire webpage is no better. It’s all laughable nonsense, offering nothing of any substance. No real claims are made except “I do not understand evolution, even at a basic level, and I can’t understand how these things could have evolved. But I do believe in magic and a Magical Super Genie, so I believe that he dun it wiv his magical powers!” What’s to refute? It’s mindless drivel. [ME: Obviously he didn’t read the site, but he repeats the ignorant rant.]

evocritic wrote:Evolutionists use placoderms and flatworms as examples of steps in the evolution of eyes. They think that because there are some “simpler” eyes in existence today, that proves evolution. The only problem is placoderms had binocular and possibly color vision. They also had two bony eye sockets. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrate … dermi.html Flatworms have two eyespots that help them sense light. But this means that they must have optic nerves, and a visual cortex to translate a coded nerve signal into light and some sort of image. Both systems would be immensely complex, and not the simple vision systems required to prove Darwin. http://www.mcwdn.org/Animals/Flatworm.html
More cut & paste drivel, from the same page.

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION):(DEMEAN Q OR Q) <Sigh> Yes MODERN examples of various creatures may have complex eyes, but the various varieties provide evidence of how other eyes evolved. We know they did, the only question is how. [ME: Right. That is the BIG question.} There are numerous examples to choose from to highlight the progression.

(READ PPRS) If you actually care (rather than what we all fully expect, which is that you are merely trying to push your religious agenda by undermining a part of science you don’t really understand anyway) then Wikipedia might be a good start:
Evolution of the eye.

evocritic wrote:Out of a billion species that have inhabited the earth, these examples are pathetic anyway.
So why did ‘you’ pick them out?!

evocritic wrote:If binocular vision systems evolved by Mutation and Natural Selection, there would be overwhelming evidence . And, of course, the question arises, why didn’t “simple eyed” creatures cited by evolutionists fully evolve complex visual systems? Why are they here as “simple” eyes when they have had 2,000 times longer than evolutionists say it took eyes to evolve in the first place?

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER): Because you have no understanding or appreciation of what the theory of evolution reveals! It is YOUR naive presumption that things must progress to some set ‘ideal’ goal. Why should you ASSUME that any organism would evolve a complex eye (apparently like ours)? Why would they, if it was not required, or if the required evolutionary steps (the “right” mutations etc.) did not arise? Answer; we should not! I think someone is stil stuck back on that naive pre-Darwin “Ladder of life” rubbish!

You (or the guy you are blindly copying this crap from) are demanding that we explain why they haven’t gone up the ladder (left image) to be all evolved and shit, like us! When the answer is that you are looking at the wrong, non-evolutionary, image. My gods man; it was Darwin himself who showed us that, 150 years ago, at the very beginnings or evolutionary science!

evocritic wrote:Euglena is a single celled species that evolutionauts cite as an example of “simple” visual systems. For one thing, euglena NEVER evolved into a multi -celled species.
(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): No; MOST life on Earth never evolved into multicellular organisms. Most life is bacteria. Whyever not? Did they not figure out how to climb that ladder to get to such wondeful heights as us?! Oh that’s right; IT’S NOT A BLOODY LADDER!

Single Celled Organisms continue to BE single celled organisms, even after ~4,000,000,000 years of evolution, because being a single celled organisms works! They survive and thrive just fine as they are, thank you very much. [ME: Then why did we? Why did all other multi-celled species become multi-celled, and leave so many behind? Was multi-celled good for one species, bad for another? ]

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): In fact in that ~4,000,000,000 years none of ‘em, not a single line of organisms even bothered to become multicellular for the first 3,000,000,000 or more! Why? Again, because single celled life works just fine; they survive and produce offspring which in turn survives and produces viable offspring. That, in evolutionary terms, counts as success! As a matter of fact some bacteria are so good at it that they produce new generations in under 10 minutes! [ME: If it’s so gawddammed good, why didn’t we all  stay that way?]

evocritic wrote: It’s light sensitive spot isn’t any kind of eye.

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER):  No, it’s the evolutionary ancestor of the eye. Kind of the whole point there bub.

evocritic wrote: It reacts to heat or electromagnetic waves, and makes no images. The spot isn’t “light sensitive”, and it never evolved into anything more than what it is.

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER): “reacts to…electromagnetic waves…isn’t “light sensitive” “
Do you even know what LIGHT is? [ME: ADParker certainly doesn’t.]

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION):And of course the ‘spot’ on an organism living today didn’t evolve into something else! It’s the RESULT of evolution. It’s future descendants will have what it will eventually evolve into. Which may be more complex, practically the same, less complex, or disappear completely. Evolution is not all “more complex, more special” you know.

evocritic wrote:Euglena had 2,000 times longer than eyes supposedly took to evolve, but it did nothing.
Huh? No; they the exact same amount of time. We all come from the same place. [ME: what a dumb statement. Eyes were fully evolved 500MYA. Doesn’t this smarty know that? I guess not. So, in the last 500MY, why didn’t the lesser eyed species evolve complete eye systems?]
And how on Earth do you know it “did nothing”?! Do you have a complete ancestral history do you? [ME: Of course not. We know what evolved because we have the result. Right here, right now.]

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): But yet again, you are implying that since it did not evolve to what YOU would have it have done, something like us “peak of evolutionary design” humans perhaps? That it therefore “did nothing.” No, it evolved just like the rest of us. Perhaps it remained largely unchanged for a long period of time, if there is nothing to push change then that can happen, but then again who knows how many variations it’s ancestors have gone through? [ME: Just say it and it’s true! All that is necessary to to describe what is already here, and guess what happened in the past. “It did evolve because it did, and it didn’t because it didn’t, dummy.”  Now that is science! ]

evocritic wrote: That is bent evidence. Euglena didn’t evolve into multi-celled, the spot didn’t, yet it is used as evidence for evolution of visual systems. Further, since it is single celled, it is not comparable to a visual systems that are COMPOSED of individual cells. It’s EMR sensitve spot is intracellular, so it couldn’t be a building block.
(DEMEAN Q) What utter nonsense!

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): That one example – the photoreceptive cell by the way, not the particular organism is one facet of the evidence, one of a long series of adaptations, which some organisms remained at while others went onto other things. Which when all combined amount to strong evidence of the evolution of the particular feature.

The evidence here is simply that such a simple photosensitive cell offers some benefit to the organism, and is thus a viable step along the evolutionary path to more complex eyes like our own.

By the way: The human eye is jet another prime example of shoddy design. [ME: Design?  I thought they weren’t designed.] At least it would be if it had been “intentionally designed.”  [ME: Yea, it is shoddy. You should get rid of yours, since they are so pathetic.]

evocritic wrote:
Other factors:

Mutation CPA’s: According to evolutionists, a huge majority of mutations are not “good”. Therefore each selected mutation would have to be accompanied by many “bad” mutations, which would mean one step forward and many steps back. The finish line would never be reached.
Continuing on with the cust & paste eh?

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER): “Finish line” Now there’s a perfect highlighting of the naive and grossly ignorantly fallacious assumption that it is some kind of linear improvement progression!

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION):Most mutations are not “good”, they are “neutral.” Did you know that we humans have on average 128 mutations from the Zygote stage? Get off this naively fallacious assumption that mutations are somehow linear: “One mutation causes X which is followed by mutation Y, followed by…” No, mutations are (largely) random and can and do happen in random, and all over the place on the genome. Mutations are the “copying errors” which provide the raw material for evolutionary change. Natural Selection, plus other factors such as genetic drift (which plays a huge part in evolution,) are the driving force of where those changes lead.

So it is NOTHING like a simplistic “one step forward and many steps back” methodology. But rather a bunch of (often tiny or even ‘invisible’) [ME: Often or always invisible?] variations, in many different organisms in a given genepool, offering many slight advantages, disadvantages, and neutral variations (noticed or not) which are then affected by factors such as natural selection pressures to either survive or not, and of course how well they do and how many offspring they produce etc. all comes into play. It’s a huge complex web. And includes the passing on of what anti-science apologists such as yourself love to call “good” and “bad” mutations, because sometimes they are intimately linked. But if overall they resulting organism survives, and over generations does so better than ‘rivals’ then those genes continue on (undergoing further mutations as will of course.)

(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION)A good example is the gene that causes sickle-cell anaemia. This is a mutation of the hemoglobin gene. It is “bad” in that it caused certain factors of poor health. And if one has TWO copies of the gene then they have full blown sickle-cell anaemia., which is quite deadly. BUT the gene is also “good,” especially where it is most prevalent (Africa.) You see; it also offers an extra level of resistance to Malaria. So; it has it definite bad aspects but it also has great survival value (as long as one only receives one copy of the gene from ones parents,) and that is why the gene has survived – it helps the organisms to survive the threat of malaria. Even though it can also kill some of the organisms it finds itself in as well. [ME: So this is a good example of the mutations that formed complex visual systems and four chambered hearts?  This answer addresses the question, which is a rarity. But it’s no real answer, but the feeble attempt gets black bold!.]

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER): :It ‘s not so simple as your childish black & white God/Bad canard tries to portray!  [God/bad?]

evocritic wrote: Did a single mutation cause the same eye parts to form in the right and left eyes?
(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): YES. Bilateralism; It’s a simple matter really – the genetic code (recipe) has the function “make an eye.” The recipe simply calls up this funtion, then the command “make aother one on the other side. That’s it. No need for two seperate eye making programs! (And I suppose you think that the spider has eight!) One instruction makes BOTH eyes blue (or green or whatever) and so on. [ME: Oh my, how simple! I thought eyes were complex, but AD makes it so easy!]

(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION) Interesting factoid. Geneticists took the “make an eye” gene from a mouse, and inserted it into the part of the genome of a fly which instructs it to grow a knee. And when the fly developed, what do you think it had? That’s right; an eye on it’s knee! But what kind of eye? A mouse eye? That’s where is came from after all, and what it produces in a mouse. But no; it produced a perfectly ordinary fly eye. Because the mammal (rodent) and the insect use the exact same gene, the same code, for instructing the body to create an eye. You see there was (elsewhere on both gnomes) instructions on “how to make an eye” (different for each species of course) so that all that was needed was an instruction to “place an eye here, and another one here.” Just like a computer code which can “call a function” any number of times. Without the need to reproduce the entire function every single time. Both simple and impressive, no?

evocritic wrote:If a mutation caused the formation of 100 retinal cells, did it perform the exact same feat bilaterally? If not, did a later mutation make the 100 retinal cells on one side after an earlier mutation made 100 on the other? Of course the number of cells would have to be exact on each side. What a “bookkeeping” job that must have been for natural selection!
(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTION):This is just plain stupid. Sorry, but it is.

(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION): Mutations don’t even produce individual cells for a start! That would be Mitosis. [ME: What? Don’t mutations change cells? Who said anything about make cells. Thanks for the lesson!]

evocritic wrote:Mutation Location: Why couldn’t a species mutate the wrong type of cells and place them where the retina should be?
(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER)::Someone has no clue of the nature of the cells of multicellular organisms either. [ME: That would be you ADParker.]

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): All of the cells of an organisms are exactly the same! [ME: This guy clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about. He needs a course in histology. Amazing. He thinks he is so smart.] (DEMEAN Q or Q):(Except for the gametes of course – well duh! [ME: I love it. Be unbelievably dumb, and bring up the “well DUH” to make you look worse.]

(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION) And the odd “post- zygote” mutation.)  The differences are simply in the regulation processes, which “turn on” particular genes in the cell (at various times as well) for it to perform differing tasks. But all of your cells (except those tow exceptions mentioned above) contain the exact same, and complete, genetic code, which is the “Recipe for making a you.” [ME: This is correct. At last. But the cells of multi-cellular species are VERY DIFFERENT depending on their tasks.  Does ADParker think neurons and epithelial cells are exactly the same? Just imagine if I said something this dumb and the evolutionauts on richarddawkins.net caught it. FEEDING FRENZY! At least fifty pages worth!]

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION):These regulatory processes are advanced, full of self-correcting processes and even numerous redundancies (in case some fail) – they are after all as evolved as the rest of us. So yes, on RARE occasions, such errors do occur. such as muscle cells acting as bone cells instead. A number of rare ‘diseases’ are of this sort; where muscles calcify like bone, or any number of oddities. They are rare, but they do happen.

The reason they are so rare is the very nature of evolution; the organisms that have such errors, and the mutations and regulatory failings, well they tend to die off. And thus leave no offspring. So only (for the most part) do those that have ‘better’ cell development processes continue to produce offspring. We are in this regard (we being all living organisms) th descendants of those with the “right” genes. Because those that did not, have left no descendants at all! [ME: except those that have innumerable diseases and maladies that didn’t die off. Why didn’t evolution “clear” those?]

I like this little cliche:
Not one of your ancestors failed to have children, not one!

evocritic wrote: For example, could mutations have added cartilage cells to the iris, since mutations had no intelligence, which means anything could be possible? If mutations did that, does that mean the host would not have survived? Couldn’t retinal cells be just as easily added to the knee or stomach as to the eye?

(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION): All of these oddities can occur (and probably have.) Many would not survive. (Almost) all would not leave behind any offspring. What this means is that the mutations that arose in them, would also ‘die’ with them. So that would be the end of the line for them.
This is a major key to evolution: The “good” mutations, the genes that provide certain benefits (primarily for survival and procreation) tend to be passed on and thus spread and multiply over many many generations. Those that are “bad” tend to be very short lived. So, and this should be abundantly obvious, over time the “good” would accumulate, and the “Bad” would be relatively rare. Which is indeed the case.
[ME: I will give this an “actual answer” even though those “good” mutations are a fantasy. They are invisible, while the “bad” ones can be large and easy to observe: sheep with seven legs, bubble-eyed babies, missing or deformed limbs. Why don’t we have the same “obviousness” with the “good” mutations?]

evocritic wrote:The complexities for Mutation and Natural Selection are so astronomically enormous, logic should tell us they are beyond the world of possibility.

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER) Yet more ignorant assertions?! This is just more argument from ignorance piffle. You bloody Magic Man is what is “beyond the world of possibility.”

EDIT: Ah I see that Calilasseia (The dreaded Blue Butterfly) has struck yet again, while I was compiling my post. [ME: Yea, he came, he saw, he conquered….I mean tripped. But no one saw the trip.  Except me. The evolutionauts are too indoctrinated to be objective.]

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER) If that site you are copying this crap from is yours; then you have a great deal or education to catch up on, before you have any place in such discussions.
If not, then you would be well advised to find a better source than that load of garbage. Because that was simply atrociously awful! [ME: Thanks! I’ll take that as a compliment!]

by Fnordensen » Fri May 08, 2009 8:33 pm

Goddamn ADParker, that was glorious! [ME: Another worshipper! He has no idea that it wasn’t glorious.]

by ADParker » Fri May 08, 2009 8:44 pm

Thanks.

I think that Calilasseia and I often make a (usually completely unintentional) deadly one-two combo. I point out the logically fallacious bullshit, he hits ‘em with the REAL science (which leaves their little magic man fantasy in the dust.) [ME: Declared themselves the WINNERS! Congratulations! Just tons of  worhip and celebration!  They are all so happy. A challenge to their belief system was answered with A-bombs. Let the party begin:]

by LucidFlight » Fri May 08, 2009 8:58 pm

bravo!

by Cynocephaly » Fri May 08, 2009 11:33 pm

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER)It’s always funny when creos say that “Evolution made hitler and eugenics” when it’s creos like the OP who are obsessed with PERFECTION and being MORE BETTER. it’s as if they wish they could breed the ultimate human… an ultimate race of creos. well, that goes to my list of things learned from creationists.

by BeAfraid » Sat May 09, 2009 12:00 am

He hasn’t tread on my territory yet… I am waiting though. I’m sure that he will eventually get there, they all seem to go through the same sort of progression, maybe not in the same order, but they always get to that claim that you cannot explain complexity, or that love cannot be explained by science..Matthew Bailey

.[ME: I love how evolutionauts rag on skeptics because they say complexity can’t be explained. Then evolutionauts themselves can’t explain it, but pretend they can! Words are so easy. Reality is so tough.]

by CRasch » Sat May 09, 2009 12:13 am

You would think that creationist would some how experience anagnorisis from all the peripeteia that happens here.

LucidFlight » Sat May 09, 2009 12:21 am

This apparent dénouement shall reveal the truth of such dystopia.

( Liberal poetic license applied to these words.)

by Spearthrower » Sat May 09, 2009 12:39 am

(DEMEANS THE QUESTION OR QUESTIONER)Translation for the vocabulary challenged: They should have shat their brains outta their arses by now.

by Delphin » Sat May 09, 2009 12:50 am

(READ PPRS) Please read “Climbing Mount Improbable”. Chapter 5. “The forty-fold Path to Enlightment” – and come back if you still have any questions.

by THWOTH » Sat May 09, 2009 12:56 am

I just like to shag their still twitching corpses!

by LucidFlight » Sat May 09, 2009 1:09 am

Mycernius wrote:Two choices here: He has run off and hid or we are going to get some links to pathetic apologist sites.
I like to think there is a small chance (although, probably vanishingly so) that he’ll admit to his errors, like Nel did. Alas, I do sense that my thinking may be wishful and foolish.

by hackenslash » Sat May 09, 2009 3:30 am

evocritic wrote:It reacts to heat or electromagnetic waves, and makes no images. The spot isn’t “light sensitive”, and it never evolved into anything more than what it is.

That’s worthy of FSTDT. Oh my mod, where do they find these people? [ME: this guy has no idea what light is. Hackenslash, it’s better to not open your mouth until you find out.]

by Samantha » Sat May 09, 2009 3:49 am

Somebody should submit that, its hilariously stupid. I bet you even Paris Hilton or Britney Spears could see why that is stupid.

by Shrunk » Sat May 09, 2009 4:04 am

Yawn Yawn lol, isnt evocritic going to respond????????

by MichaelR » Sat May 09, 2009 4:08 am

Evocritic: I dont know why people think that raising a minor point like this has any effect on evolution.

(STRAWMAN) Before getting stuck on presenting a midge bite like this you need to realise that “evolution” is only accepted because of all the evidnece for an ancient earth and universe. So if your toothy problem is right (and it’s not) it still leaves the vast age of the earth intact, which is disastrous to a Young Earth position.

I suggest you go for the jugular or rather the guillotine and stop pestering us with midge bites but rather give the evidence why deep geological time is wrong ( and why young earth arguments are right) [ME: The people that hate strawman attacks………. A young earth was never a point by evocritic.  Button pressed, tape plays.]

by I.C.37 » Sat May 09, 2009 4:52 am

evocritic wrote:For one thing, euglena NEVER evolved into a multi -celled species.
Reality disagrees with you.

Single cells, first forming colonies then organism: [ME: First read the statement. Then answer. Euglena exists today, and didn’t go multi…]

evocritic wrote:It’s light sensitive spot isn’t any kind of eye. It reacts to heat or electromagnetic waves, and makes no images.

Light IS electromagnetic radiation. Such a light sensitive spot can tell if light is present or not. 3 light sensitive spots clumped together can tell where the light comes from. Where is light there’s food therefore organisms with better eyes got favored by natural selection!  [ME: Wrong. Electromagnetic radiation is converted into light in our visual cortex.  Light only exists in our brains. Another evolutionaut who has no idea what light is, and rags away,  not realizing how dumb his rag is. Argument from ignorance.]

by evocritic » Sat May 09, 2009 2:06 pm

I don’t believe the earth is young, u are asking me to give evidence for something i dont intend to. And counter arguments/responses will come soon. I just dont have all day to spend on the PC, im too busy. speak to u soon

[ME: Evocritic fights back. But, alas, it’s useless. Battling indoctrinates isn’t worth the time.]

evocritic

Banned [ME: Banned for his horrible behavior! He was so naughty. He doesn’t believe, and THAT is naughty. Good ban.]

by pontius-ft » Sat May 09, 2009 3:01 pm

Mycernius wrote:Two choices here: He has run off and hid or we are going to get some links to pathetic apologist sites.

He already ran from Evidence of humans and dinosaurs living together.

I don’t understand the problem he has with admitting he’s wrong. The arrogant and childish manner he began with makes that more difficult of course. If he doesn’t publicly, I hope he does to himself at least.

by Samantha » Sat May 09, 2009 3:07 pm

I don’t believe the earth is young, u are asking me to give evidence for something i dont intend to. And counter arguments/responses will come soon. I just dont have all day to spend on the PC, im too busy. speak to u soon

You apparently also don’t believe that light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. So the next time you have 5 minutes out of your busy day to talk to us, would you care to explain the difference between “reacts to electromagnetic waves” and “light sensitive”?

[ME: My gawd. Another evolutionaut that doesn’t know what light is. ]

by Bubalus » Sat May 09, 2009 5:31 pm

It’s plagurism and he’s run back asking for help from the site.

Here are his comments:

jerry said,
May 9, 2009 at 5:48 am

i pasted some of your arguments onto richarddawkins.net forum, this is the response i got:

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=81464

if you would care to read it and provide some counter arguments, that would be good. evo’s use so much group psychology its unreal.

Reply
jerry said,
May 9, 2009 at 11:11 am

oh sorry, u have to have a login and username, u can use mine, evocritic, password is qwerty

Reply
stevebee92653 said,
May 9, 2009 at 5:52 pm

I tried registering on my own, and logging in with your stuff. No luck. I would like to read the responses. I will try later.

by pontius-ft » Sat May 09, 2009 5:34 pm

Check out his YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/stevebee92653

It features such gems as:

The Origin of Life Made Difficult

Eye Evolution-It’s Impossible

[ME: Oh my god. They found me. Now I am in for it.]

by pontius-ft » Sat May 09, 2009 5:52 pm

Great detective work there!Let’s all call evocritic Jerry now.

by zxcvbnm » Sat May 09, 2009 5:57 pm
Well, now I have to mark this thread to see what happens next. This should be entertaining, I hope.

by maik » Sat May 09, 2009 5:59 pm

pontius-ft wrote:
Let’s all call evocritic Jerry now.
Nah..most likely it will be Stevebee next time in his place.

The Real Deal..The Great One.. The Man With The Case..Not just a “messanger”.I’d like to see him with Cali in this “great” debate..Anyone wanna bet on the wheel chair against the Ferrari? [ME: The blue butterfly is in a wheelchair? Sorry to hear!]

by LucidFlight » Sat May 09, 2009 5:59 pm

Hi Jerry. I hope your blog friend figures out how to join the discussion(s) on this forum. I’m sure it will turn out to be a most entertaining time.

by justwondering » Sat May 09, 2009 6:09 pm

It just never ceases to amaze me what trouble people seem to have with truth. Am I naive? I mean they go to such lengths to turn it around to suit their view!

“How did survival on this planet get to be a liberal cause?” -Bill Maher on global warming [ME: Naturally they think us little ants are causing global warming. Gullible in one field, gullible in another.]

“Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.” -Carl Sagan  [ME: I hope so. I think we can do better than selected mutations.]

by maik » Sat May 09, 2009 6:10 pm

The Empire State Building vs the basement of my house. [ME: My gawd, worse than an A-bomb!]

by synapticriot » Sat May 09, 2009 6:11 pm

Nevermind, bookmarking. I am new and damn do people know a lot. Is this because these are your fields of expertise? Just curious, you guys sound light-years ahead of most teachers and “scientists” I’ve met.  [ME: How could such smart people be so easily fooled. So gullible?]

PS. He’s online. [ME?]

by Tero1111 » Sat May 09, 2009 6:18 pm

evocritic, I think you need your own sandbox and pail and shovel. I am not playing, sorry.

I got rid of God. Now, how do I get rid of my Lutheranism?

by maik » Sat May 09, 2009 6:23 pm

After all this discussion, i doubt he’ll show up.. I wouldn’t serve my pop-corns yet..[ME: Yea, really scary.]

by pontius-ft » Sat May 09, 2009 6:25 pm

What a fuckin’ nail-biter!

by chem_major » Sat May 09, 2009 6:33 pm

I’ll be honest, I just want to get a chuckle out of any attempt to refute Cali’s post…

(MEANINGLESS PERSONAL ATTACK): Calilasseia wrote:Trouble is, some creationists will think this [Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus] is a valid representation of evolution. After all, they think The Flintstones is a documentary. [ME: Yea, people that don’t think visual systems and cardiac systems self-assembled are really dumb. There is simply no reason to think there could be some other explanation. None.]

by The Ecophysiologist » Sat May 09, 2009 6:44 pm

Evocritic has been banned. [ME: Hooooray! We are pure again!]

by LucidFlight » Sat May 09, 2009 6:51 pm

Perhaps we should offer Stevebee some encouragement, via his blog comments, to come finish what evocritic started.

Oh, hang on…

evocritic said,

May 10, 2009 at 2:55 am

Hi stevebee92653. I think ur awesome. I wish you could go to that Richard Dawkins forum and show all those evos how wrong they are.

by ADParker » Sat May 09, 2009 7:05 pm

Pathetic. He cuts and pastes (so I am thinking that he does not as such “believe that light is not a part of the electromagnetic spectrum” but instead that he copied something blindly, assuming it to be accurate because it supported his cherished little worldview ) and as soon as anyone dared try to debunk it, as he requested, he runs back to the website he copied it from for the response. Childish argument by proxy. We were never debating Jerry to begin with, he was never “really” present.

synapticriot wrote:I am new and damn do people know a lot. Is this because these are your fields of expertise? Just curious, you guys sound light-years ahead of most teachers and “scientists” I’ve met.

It’s a real mixed bag here.

There are a number or real, honest to goodness, scientists/philosophers and teachers among us, actual experts in their respective fields. Also a fair few “gifted amateurs” with a real passion for the science and/or philosophy on which they speak. A fair number of the rest of us (I guess I would fit here) are simply somewhat ‘gifted Reasonists’ with a passion for things like science, philosophy, reason in general, knowledge and truth. We basically make the effort. [ME: My gawd, again. This guy argues as if he is a huge expert, and he never has had courses in the subjects that would be important for understanding the realities of evolution? No wonder he thinks “all cells are alike”. ADparker, go educate yourself before coming on my site and blabbering about something you have only been successfully indoctrinated in.]

And I might add that I at least have got the creationists themselves to thank for a lot of my increased understanding of many of these things. They act as a foil against which I can directly ‘sharpen’ my skills [ME: Skiills? What skills?]and understanding against, in terms of practicing debate, and going out and researching their questions and charges. And of course there is much to be learned from our fellow members debating them as well.

REASON OVER FAITH
Faith: Belief through the (wilful) abandonment of Reason. [ME: Evolution in a nutshell. Great quote!]

by Spearthrower » Sat May 09, 2009 7:44 pm

I’ve extended an invitation to Stevebee to come and show us, in glorious technicolour, his arguments for the impossibility of evolution.  As for evocritic: pathetic.

by hotshoe » Sat May 09, 2009 7:48 pm

ADParker wrote:… I might add that I at least have got the creationists themselves to thank for a lot of my increased understanding of many of these things. They act as a foil against which I can directly ‘sharpen’ my skills and understanding against, in terms of practicing debate, and going out and researching their questions and charges. And of course there is much to be learned from our fellow members debating them as well.

Me too. Without the stimulus of creotards who need spanking, I wouldn’t be motivated to research so many questions or to actually read the scientific articles instead of just skimming the easy parts of Scientific American. I got a good university education in biology – but that was a long time ago, and I would be content to be way out of date if it weren’t for the fun challenge of being right in the arguments here.

Papers and links posted by the experts and passionate amateurs here have turned out to be just what I need.

Thanks, you know who you are.

by Calilasseia » Sat May 09, 2009 9:21 pm

Elsewhere, outside these forums, I’m in intermittent contact with Professor Per Ahlberg, who is one of THE leading figures in tetrapod palaeontology and evolution. He and Jennifer Clack are strong contenders for the number one and two spots in the field, though don’t ask me to place bets on which is which, because they both possess a command of their subject that is awesome to behold. Per Ahlberg also studies Sarcopterygian fishes, which tie in with tetrapods because the tetrapods descended from the Rhipidistian Sarcopterygian lineage. Per has gracefully provided me with copies of several of his papers from Nature, so I can refer to them if anyone starts making stupid creationist noises about tetrapods. [ME: WOW! Evolutionauts namedrop too!]

So, you’re in good company here. Needless to say, with this sort of expertise to call upon, and in the case of several of the regular posters here, two years or more of battle honours fending off the canards, let’s just say that we provide evidence of natural selection in action, because we’ve had enough exposure to creationist duplicity and misrepresentation of valid science to develop the requisite antibodies.

by BeAfraid » Sat May 09, 2009 10:35 pm

The Ecophysiologist wrote:Evocritic has been banned.

Pourquoi?

Matthew Bailey

by Mysturji » Sun May 10, 2009 1:12 am

BeAfraid wrote: The Ecophysiologist wrote:Evocritic has been banned.

Pourquoi?

Matthew Bailey
I assume it was for posting his username & password on a public forum. [ME: What a bunch of tattletales. I wonder what gene the tattletales trait is controlled by. The PAX6? Imagine  an evolutionaut going to my site and perusing comments made by evocritic for me, out of the hundreds there, and going back to RD.net and informing.  Actually informing! Whoever eavesdropped on this one, good job!  You will get a reward for sure for being a good little evolutionaut.]

[ME: The blue butterfly returns for EVEN MORE! He must be really be intimidated. You mean he didn’t really answer the questions in all of that other stuff he researched and put together?  He’s not satisfied?  OK, so here we go again:

by Calilasseia » Wed May 20, 2009 1:21 pm

Oh look. More papers on the underlying genetics and molecular biology of tooth development.
First we have this:Reiterative Signalling And Patterning During Mammailan Tooth Development by Jukka Jernvall and Irma Thesleff, Mechanisms of Development, 92: 19-29 (2000) [full paper available from here]

Jernvall & Thesleff, 2000 wrote:Abstract

(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION)Mammalian dentition consists of teeth that develop as discrete organs. From anterior to posterior, the dentition is divided into regions of incisor, canine, premolar and molar tooth types. Particularly teeth in the molar region are very diverse in shape. The development of individual teeth involves epithelial-mesenchymal interactions that are mediated by signals shared with other organs. Parts of the molecular details of signaling networks have been established, particularly in the signal families BMP, FGF, ]Hh and Wnt, mostly by the analysis of gene expression and signaling responses in knockout mice with arrested tooth development. Recent evidence suggests that largely the same signaling cascade is used reiteratively throughout tooth development. The successional determination of tooth region, tooth type, tooth crown base and individual cusps involves signals that regulate tissue growth and differentiation. Tooth type appears to be determined by epithelial signals and to involve differential activation of homeobox genes in the mesenchyme. (HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION):This differential signaling could have allowed the evolutionary divergence of tooth shapes among the four tooth types. (MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION)The advancing tooth morphogenesis is punctuated by transient signaling centers in the epithelium corresponding to the initiation of tooth buds, tooth crowns and individual cusps. The latter two signaling centers, the primary enamel knot and the secondary enamel knot, have been well characterized and are thought to direct the differential growth and subsequent folding of the dental epithelium. Several members of the FGF signal family have been implicated in the control of cell proliferation around the non-dividing enamel knots. Spatiotemporal induction of the secondary enamel knots determines the cusp patterns of individual teeth and is likely to involve repeated activation and inhibition of signaling as suggested for patterning of other epithelial organs.

(READ PPRS):Temporospatial Cell Interactions Regulating Mandibular And Maxillary Arch Patterning by Christine A. Ferguson, Abigail S. Tucker and Paul T. Sharpe, Development, 127: 403-412 (2000) [Full paper available from here]

Ferguson, Tucker & Sharpe, 2000 wrote:SUMMARY

(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION)The cellular origin of the instructive information for hard tissue patterning of the jaws has been the subject of a long-standing controversy. Are the cranial neural crest cells prepatterned or does the epithelium pattern a developmentally uncommitted population of ectomesenchymal cells? In order to understand more about how orofacial patterning is controlled we have investigated the temporal signalling interactions and responses between epithelium and mesenchymal cells in the mandibular and maxillary primordia. We show that within the mandibular arch, homeobox genes that are expressed in different proximodistal spatial domains corresponding to presumptive molar and incisor ectomesenchymal cells are induced by signals from the oral epithelium. In mouse, prior to E10, all ectomesenchyme cells in the mandibular arch are equally responsive to epithelial signals such as Fgf8, indicating that there is no pre-specification of these cells into different populations and suggesting that patterning of the hard tissues of the mandible is instructed by the epithelium. By E10.5, ectomesenchymal cell gene expression domains are still dependent on epithelial signals but have become fixed and ectopic expression cannot be induced. At E11 expression becomes independent of epithelial signals such that removal of the epithelium does not affect spatial ectomesenchymal expression. Significantly, however, the response of ectomesenchyme cells to epithelial regulatory signals was found to be different in the mandibular and maxillary primordium. Thus, whereas both mandibular and maxillary arch epithelia could induce Dlx2 and Dlx5 expression in the mandible and Dlx2 expression in the maxilla, neither could induce Dlx5 expression in the maxilla. Reciprocal cell transplantations between mandibular and maxillary arch ectomesenchymal cells revealed intrinsic differences between these populations of cranial neural crest-derived cells. Research in odontogenesis has shown that the oral epithelium of the mandibular and maxillary primordia has unique instructive signaling properties required to direct odontogenesis, which are not found in other branchial arch epithelia. As a consequence, development of jaw-specific skeletal structures may require some prespecification of maxillary ectomesenchyme to restrict the instructive influence of the epithelial signals and allow development of maxillary structures distinct from mandibular structures.

(READ PPRS): Also, we have this:

Normal And Abnormal Development by Isabelle Miletich and Paul T. Sharpe, Human Molecular Genetics, 12(R1):here] R69-R73 (January 2003) [Full paper avaiable from

(MODERN ANATOMY AND GENETICS; NOT EVOLUTION)Miletich & Sharpe, 2003 wrote:Teeth are vertebrate organs that arise from complex and progressive interactions between an ectoderm, the oral epithelium and an underlying mesenchyme. During their early development, tooth germs exhibit many morphological and molecular similarities with other developing epithelial appendages, such as hair follicles, mammary and salivary glands, lungs, kidneys, etc. The developing mouse tooth germ, which is an experimentally accessible model for organogenesis, provides a powerful tool for elucidating the molecular mechanisms that control the development of these organs. Dentition patterning also provides a unique model for understanding how different shapes of teeth arise in different regions of the jaws. We review here the main signalling networks mediating the epithelial–mesenchymal interactions involved in tooth morphogenesis and patterning.
I think this should cover some more bases.

[ME: Lots and lots of current genetics of the dentition. Remember the original question: How did the maxillary teeth evolve to fit perfectly into the mandibular teeth, groove matching groove, cusp matching fossa, ridge matching ridge?  How did the maxillary teeth “know” what the mandibular teeth were forming, so they could make a complete “machined” match. It’s as if one engineer was machining a gear that hat to match a gear made by another engineer, and neither engineer could see the other’s work. When completed, the gears had to match perfectly. The blue butterfly goes over and over the current anatomy and embryology of modern teeth. What a sad waste of time……he keeps going nowhere fast.  Which of the four questions above were answered by the blue butterfly in this response?  In any response by any of the respondents?]

by CJ » Wed May 20, 2009 1:25 pm

Cal’s really got his teeth into this one

Share this:

Edit this entry.

29 Responses to “H. I “Debate” with Evolutionauts at http://www.richarddawkins.net Pt. 1”

  1. Wow, Steve, you sure put a lot of work into this. Pretty coloured fonts and everything. I’m impressed.

I do feel compelled to point out, however, that one of my comments above is taken slightly out of context:

>>by Shrunk » Sat May 09, 2009 4:04 am

>>Yawn Yawn lol, isnt evocritic going to respond????????

If one looks here:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=81464

it can be seen that “evocritic” posts his questions. Then, after waiting a WHOLE EIGHT MINUTES for a response, he followed up with this post:

“Yawn Yawn lol, isnt anyone going to respond???????? I have to go to sleep its late.”

He spoke prematurely, of course. Within a very reasonable amount of time, he received several responses, most of which pointed out the sheer inanity of “his” arguments.

When the next day arrived with nary a sign of response from “evocritic,” that was when I mockingly paraphrased his earlier post. (I’m not fond of multiple punctuation, and wouldn’t otherwise use it myself . I’m also usually careful about observing apostrophes. : ) )

Of course, unbeknownst to us at the time, the reason “evocritic” hadn’t responded was that they weren’t his arguments at all. He had copy/pasted them verbatim from your site. Being at a lost as to how to respond to the counter-arguments he had received,he came back to your site hoping you would feed him his lines. You know the rest, of course.

Just to be clear, I’m not accusing you of any malfeasance with regards to your quoting my post. I’m sure it was just an oversight. I just wanted the context to be clear. Sorry for taking up so much space in that effort.

Shrunk said this on June 20, 2009 at 9:28 pm | Reply (edit)

    • BTW Shrunk, which of evocritics questions was the most inane. So easy to say, so hard to example. So, which one?

stevebee92653 said this on June 22, 2009 at 4:33 am | Reply (edit)

  1. Sometimes I get the keyboard going and my hands won’t stop. Funny how you mention that evocritics (my) questions were answered. I know you are an intelligent person. But you cannot see that none of the answers even came close to matching the questions. Why can’t you see that? Cali’s answers were amazing. It was as if he had no idea what the question was…..”something about teeth. So here is my auto-answer.” I find that astounding And the fact that none of you recognize that fact makes it even more amazing. What is 2+2? ans: 5×6=…….That is cali et al.

stevebee92653 said this on June 21, 2009 at 3:48 am | Reply (edit)

    • You claim Evocritic’s (actually your) questions were never answered. You probably feel that, because you fail to realize the questions are nonsense to begin with.

To expand on the analogy that “Mr. Samsa” used on page 20 of your blog: Suppose a “gravity denier” asked you the question “So, if the theory of gravity is true, how do the psychic mole men in the earth’s core get food?” You might reply by trying to explain a bit about Newtonian physics, and that gravity does not, in fact, depend on the existence of psychic mole men. However, your interlocutor responds, “Ha! You gravitationaut! You can’t answer my question about the psychic mole men!”

Your questions above make as much to do with evolutionary theory as psychic mole man have to do with the theory of gravity. Do you seriously think evolutionary theory says that maxillary and mandibular teeth “evolved” simultaneously so that they would interlock with each other? That’s just a straw man. The actual situation has already been explained to you, but you dismiss this as just a genetics and anatomy lesson. Well, sorry, but if you want to understand evolution, you have to understand genetics and anatomy, among other topics. (Did you say the same thing in dentistry school, I wonder? “What’s with all this anatomy BS? I just want to learn dentistry!”)

Shrunk said this on June 22, 2009 at 10:29 am | Reply (edit)

      • Re: “Do you seriously think evolutionary theory says that maxillary and mandibular teeth “evolved” simultaneously so that they would interlock with each other”?
        Thanks. I now know that you are impossibly indoctrinated, and any kind of discussion with you is worthless. Actually I knew that before, but thanks for the verify. Your “mole man” analogy doesn’t even rank as horrible. You compare that with max and mand teeth evolving, and a question about how that occurred? You evolutionauts have forfeited you ability to think to evo-evangelists. All I can say is I feel sorry for you. And your indoctrinated friends. And nice ad hom addition after your embarrassing response.

stevebee92653 said this on June 22, 2009 at 11:57 pm (edit)

  1. Hi Steve. Looks like you’ve been busy here as of late.

Please try not to get banned permanently from RD.net. You’re tons of fun. No need to take so many things so personally.

No sarcasm intended here……or there…or there……or there………ahh you get it.

Jim Beam said this on July 4, 2009 at 1:44 am | Reply (edit)

    • ANYTHING I say there is taken as bad manners, and I get warned. Your friends would love to permanently ban me. I have three blocks, so two more and it’s a life sentence. So I don’t say anything, and I occasionally take a look. It’s fun reading. A whole team of evolutionauts in action, without one person skeptical at all. I found that astounding when I first took a critical look at evolution. When I was a religious kid, I had questions and skepticism, and many of my Christian friends did as well. Questioning and skepticism are normal fair for normal people on any subject. Don’t you find it rather astounding that none of you can vary from the doctrine even one percent worth?
      PS. I don’t take anything from any evolutionaut personally. I have been through the ringer many times, and it’s water off my back. Does not bother me a bit. I sincerely wish it would be possible to have an intelligent conversation with any of you, but that isn’t in the cards. Y’all are too indoctrinated, and just spout that same dogma over and over, and think you answered questions I posed. You struck out and have no concept that you did.
      If you look at my analysis of our “discussion” here you would see that the questions I posed weren’t even close to being answered. But your filters actually wouldn’t allow that look, so forget it.
      Anyway, thanks for visiting.

stevebee92653 said this on July 4, 2009 at 2:17 am | Reply (edit)

  1. Hej Steve. You have put your own comments and opinions to the answers in red. Judging from what you actually write I think this is fitting since the red colour signefies that the responce is ADHOM (a few of the should have been coloured green but lets leave it at that). I find that the way you write about your opponents is very demeaning an condescending.

Just a few examples:
“The blue butterfly returns for EVEN MORE! He must be really be intimidated.”
“Whoever eavesdropped on this one, good job! You will get a reward for sure for being a good little evolutionaut.”
“What a bunch of tattletales. I wonder what gene the tattletales trait is controlled by. The PAX6?”
“My gawd, again. This guy argues as if he is a huge expert, and he never has had courses in the subjects that would be important for understanding the realities of evolution?”
“My gawd. Another evolutionaut that doesn’t know what light is”
” not realizing how dumb his rag is. Argument from ignorance”
“Be unbelievably dumb, and bring up the “well DUH” to make you look worse”

Well – seeing as how this is your website and all you are of course in your right to do so, but I must admit that i find it a bit imature. And starting of by complaining that you have been ruthlessly criticized and verbally attacked on richard dawkins forum and then doing the same here where they can’t reply to it.

But if you have all these objections to the facts that they state then why not tell them instead of hiding your responses on your own web-page

And why should you be the judge of the colour coding? I know that you dont much like when people cite litterature at you “insted of thinking for themselves” but much of the cited litterature that you have either coloured brown, blue or green actually gives a perspective on how the things in question evolved.

Here is a quote for instance that you have graciously ignored for having nothing to do with the question or being related to present day anatomy:

“In most cases, teeth evolved from scale-like epidermal structures, the odontodes, which “migrated” into the mouth after enough mutations. This process is visible in modern sharks, which have placoid scales on the skin that grade into the teeth on the jaws.”

At the very top of this page where you define your colour system you write:
“Note how most of the colors are anything but black bold. If evolution were a real science, most if not all of the colors would be.”
and
“(ACTUAL ANS ): Actual answers TO THE QUESTIONS POSED will be in black bold letters. I doubt we will see many of these, so I want it to be easily found if there is.”

So – steve. If you want to have the moral high ground please stop using the red and sober up your language. If your version of “science” was any good i would expect most of your own comments to be in black and not just a bunch of personal insults

Henrik Jensen said this on August 8, 2010 at 11:19 am | Reply (edit)

    • My reaction to cali was his choice. I respond in kind. He has repeatedly demeaned the HELL out of me. He wrote an entire essay, WHICH I POSTED ON MY BLOG IN THAT GROUP, about what a horrible human being I am. So, he gets treated in kind. His papers have nothing to do with the invention, design, assembly of the human dentition, or any other dentition for that matter. “Teeth came from scale-like epidermal structures?” They don’t know that. And worse, that statement has nothing to do with how teeth originally formed, and how ameloblasts and odontoblasts are able to start and stop their knitting of enamel and dentin which yields the incredible miniature sculptures in our mouths. All in proper order, incisors in front for cutting, molars in back for grinding. I want to know how that took place. How did those damn things initially form? And from different genetic pathways. These are simple questions, made so by me because you and most of you peers have absolutely no idea how complex dentition is, how it’s constructed. I have many more questions that are too complex for non dentists to read, or I would post them as well. And cali would be more stuck. The questions I posted are a drop in the bucket. You don’t care. You are satisfied with inane answers like cali gave, and his peer reviewed papers. All nonsense. So if that is good enough for you, fine. But don’t come here and rag on me unless you have something intelligent to discuss. Who said anything about a moral high ground? You? I take a scientific high ground, I could give a shit about a moral high ground on this blog. I talk science. I will respond to respectful discussion with respect. Assholes? I could care less how you think I respond to them. It’s still far more mannerly than I get treated by them.

stevebee92653 said this on August 9, 2010 at 7:53 am | Reply (edit)

  1. Bravo Steve!

This page has been one of the most frustrating things I have ever read. Many times I felt my hands reaching for my monitor only to realize I could not actually slap some sense into the evolutionauts who change the question, used ADHOM attacks, dodged the REAL QUESTIONS, Called this SCIENCE, ETC….

What is REAL SCIENCE?

–noun
1.a branch of KNOWLEDGE or study dealing with a BODY OF FACTS OR TRUTHS systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained THROUGH OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENTATION.

3.any of the branches of NATURAL OR PHYSICAL SCIENCE. (any of the natural sciences dealing with inanimate matter or with energy, as physics, chemistry, and astronomy.)

4.systematized ACCURATE knowledge in general THAT EXPLAINS OBSERVATION OF FACTS.

5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

6.a particular branch of knowledge.

7.skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

I like the way Isaac Asimov put it ” The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!) but “That’s funny…”

Sorry, though. I just find it hard to accept most of evolution as science. It’s pretty sad these days, because from where I sit, on the internet, someone who knows how to use a search engine can actually look “intelligent” without really studying or doing any real work in the field. Just to clarify, by study I mean, school, the field, and self taught (autodidactic). I am the latter. I found that out early on in 6th grade. I found I could learn faster in the library than I could in class. Lets put it this way, I can spot a phony from a mile off. The reason these jerks never answer the real question is because they DON”T KNOW! All I see them doing is reading the question, putting a few key words in a search engine and what comes up, that’s what they run with. Believe me when I say that if they REALLY COULD come up with the answer to the real question, THAT is what they would use. It may look like evasion, but all that is going on is, get something that “SOUNDS” right and throw it out like a soup bone to a starving dog and claim victory so all their worshipers will rejoice. If the blue butterfly ever stopped suddenly, he’ll find out how many heads will fit up his ASS! I have many interests and go to forums and blogs all over the internet, but I would have to say, after reading this, that blog/forum is there for one SAD PURPOSE, Intimidate the nonbelievers and call it a contest. I have been and still belong to varied forums on other sciences and this is the first time I have seen such crap. For instance, I went to a physics forum and wanted to know about the Bose-Einstein condensate and practical applications of superfluidity in the outside world we live in. They were falling all over themselves to point me to some experimentation and application, while others wrote eloquent answers about superfluidity and possible applications that might be forthcoming after further study. NOT ONCE did anyone “call me names”, “Ignore my questions”, or “demean my intelligence”. They had their “champion” and said when he got there, he could easily point me in the right direction. They were polite, informative, and NOT ONCE ever threatened me.

I find it incredible that by just asking a question, the “Dawkins” people go on a feeding frenzy. This is the ONLY SUPPOSED science where I have seen such a collection of elitist snobs who are more interested in crushing someone rather than teaching them. I’m glad I found your blog first!

Dwilkes7 said this on September 10, 2010 at 5:27 pm | Reply (edit)

    • Thanks for the great comment! I am amazed at how wrong I took your first comment, and I still feel bad. I think I was a bit of a grump that day after going at it with these evolutionauts. As soon as I saw a “we” in your writing, I was a bit set off.
      I went on the “new” RD.net: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/remember-stevebee-t9281-400.html because they had posted one of my vids there. I was pretty proud that they had two threads dedicated to lil ole me, the guy they say is so dense. The discussion is a carbon copy of the RD.net discussion, with them ragging away endlessly. “stevebee doesn’t understand, doesn’t really have patents, I answered him but he just won’t listen to reason…….”. Cali is there with his endless peer reviewed papers and writing that no one reads but himself. Plus a bunch of pictures of his tropical fish that he says he sees evolving. What a nutcase. I finally said adios. Just no sense in trying to discuss this hoax with it’s dedicated to the death defenders.
      Interesting on your physics question. Imagine what you would think if they ragged on you endlessly for asking a question? Try my last page if you have a minute (p. 36). I just posted it a couple of days ago. And read the responses at the bottom. Simply amazing. One guy (ADParker) actually admitted I had him stumped. Amazing to see one of them admit it. THAT is a first. Anyway, thanks again for the fun comment. So nice to get good and positive ones.

stevebee92653 said this on September 10, 2010 at 5:54 pm | Reply (edit)

  1. Don’t feel bad about that Steve. Anyone can make a mistake. I try to take things in stride and give others the benefit of a doubt. The more I read here, the happier I get. This is the best blog on evolution I have come across.

I was especially upset with their flippant treatment of teeth. I used to lecture for Jeneric/pentron. I taught people how to use what is referred to as the “dry powder technique) and proper anatomical form for each tooth. I always tried to make them super aware of the importance of proper form and function. I had fun with my lectures. At the outset of the class, I gave everyone a caramel candy. When I was ready, I told them to chew it on one side of their mouth only. When they had been at it for about 30-40 seconds, they each had a piece of bread to chew. It was hilarious when they found it difficult at the least and some even had a little pain in the TMJ. I was then able to teach them that the caramel had filled the tiny grooves on the occlusion. It was MUCH easier to prove to them that not only proper anatomy on the occlusal was needed for FUNCTION, but it was different for each patient, as the dentition was as unique as fingerprints. Another few hours of what peak goes where as is dictated by the opposing anatomical structure. Man, I really kind of miss teaching, I found it most rewarding when I could “see” the lights coming on and technicians leaving with a renewed appreciation of those principles!

Dwilkes7 said this on September 10, 2010 at 8:16 pm | Reply (edit)

  1. Just one more thing. If Cali is not joking about seeing evolution taking place in his fish, he really is in need of therapy, hopefully with the use of several psych drugs.

Dwilkes7 said this on September 10, 2010 at 8:25 pm | Reply (edit)

    • Roger that. Did you see the pictures he posted? Imagine if I posted picture of my goldfish as evidence against evolution? “My goldfish didn’t evolve a bit in twenty years!” What a laugh. I would never hear the end of it.

stevebee92653 said this on September 10, 2010 at 10:19 pm | Reply (edit)

  1. I.C.37 writes:
    “Light IS electromagnetic radiation. Such a light sensitive spot can tell if light is present or not. 3 light sensitive spots clumped together can tell where the light comes from. Where is light there’s food therefore organisms with better eyes got favored by natural selection!”

Steve-bee-for-brains throws in some BS commentary that nobody asked for:
“[ME: Wrong. Electromagnetic radiation is converted into light in our visual cortex. Light only exists in our brains. Another evolutionaut who has no idea what light is, and rags away, not realizing how dumb his rag is. Argument from ignorance.]”

Actually Steve, your statement is an argument from equivocation, where you purposely miss-define something so it suits your interests.
It also doesn’t work because we have overwhelming evidence that light is a physical aspect of reality regardless of how much some of us want to believe that we’re all trapped in some kind of simulated world and things only exist in our minds.
If all that nonsense in your video about the age of the universe and conscious observers is true, then it would imply that you’ll cease to exist if people stop paying you any attention.

HellaStyle said this on October 4, 2010 at 3:28 am | Reply (edit)

    • (1) IC actually thinks light sensitive spots are eyes! You must too!
      (2) That’s a new good one for my list of trite meaningless evo-arguments. There are arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, and now arguments from equivocation! Thanks!
      (3) So why are you paying attention?

stevebee92653 said this on October 4, 2010 at 5:46 am | Reply (edit)

      • (1) You’ve been told repeatedly that for any system to develop, it has to start somewhere and light-sensitive proteins, or eye-spots, are as good a start as anyone can ask for. C’mon, metaphorically speaking if you can walk 20 feet and develop a specialized protein then walking 200 miles to develop a modern eye is no more difficult.
        (2) YOU are the one using those kinds of fallacious arguments, not your critics. It’s also obvious to the truly objective that you still don’t even know how to identify those fallacies, which would explain why you still use them no matter how many times they’re exposed.
        (3) My reasons are mine and mine alone, and you should be trying to defend the absurd notion that light is not physical but purely mental. It’s not really up to you to tell people what they can and cannot read and respond to on the internet.

HellaStyle said this on October 4, 2010 at 11:50 am (edit)

      • (1) “I have been told repeatedly?” What a laugh, since no person who ever lived “knows”….except you. Try actually thinking. Better yet, try drawing out the steps to the evolution of eyes and a visual system. You will get stuck fast, put down your pencil, and believe anyway. Such is the MO of indoctrinates. There are no steps possible.
        (2) “Exposed?” Why don’t you try identifying my fallacies, instead of doing your generic evo-rant. I do know why. You can’t. So you rant.
        (2) Light color and visual images are pure perception. Take a good physiology course and you might figure it out. Does light actually reach your visual cortex? Or is it pitch dark where your images are formed. Does light travel up the optic nerve into your brain?
        Matters not. You are so dogmatic and fooled. You are brain locked.

stevebee92653 said this on October 4, 2010 at 4:42 pm (edit)

  1. Do I need to show you that nice little chart that shows the steps from eye spots to pit eyes to pinhole camera eyes to enclosed eyes and finally to enclosed eyes with a focusing lens?
    There are these amazing little things called Photons. They are energy-transfer particles that are covered in elementary physics and their wave-lengths determine what kind of spectral category they fall under be it infrared, ultraviolet, radio, gamma, or visible light. Photo-receptive cells simply react chemically when hit buy visible light photons and then relay that information to the brain. So much for me being “brain locked”. Now back to you.

HellaStyle said this on October 4, 2010 at 6:49 pm | Reply (edit)

    • I have rules for commenting here on p. 1a. Try giving them a read before wasting your time writing what has been written dozens of times. Most of your stuff is just a waste of space and time.
      Your “eye chart” is nothing but a cartoon made up by another evolutionaut. Why do you fall for such absurdities?
      Your treatise on light is correct. Good for you. Think about the “relay” part of the equation. Is the “relay’ composed of light, color, and visual images? Or a biochemical code.

stevebee92653 said this on October 4, 2010 at 10:08 pm | Reply (edit)

      • “Your “eye chart” is nothing but a cartoon made up by another evolutionaut. Why do you fall for such absurdities?”

*Chuckling to myself*
Well, if you have an alternative model for how the vertebrate eye came about, other than *POOF*, I’d love to hear about it.

“Think about the “relay” part of the equation. Is the “relay’ composed of light, color, and visual images? Or a biochemical code.”

Neither. It’s a steady biochemical signal that’s more analogue than digital as you like to portray it. Also bear in mind that even if the cortex is an important part of image processing in the brain, it still doesn’t discount the fact that outside light still needs to interact with the receptor cells in the eye in order for us to see anything.
That is, unless you want to stick with the pointless philosophical idea that physical reality only exist in our minds and there’s no such thing as a world outside our brains.

HellaStyle said this on October 5, 2010 at 1:17 am (edit)

      • Again, try reading the rules. I have left acres of comments attacking the hell out of me. After a while, it’s time for evos to put up or shut up. The personal attack strategy is a failure, and I really don’t want to see you evolutionauts waste any more of your time.
        So according to you the choice is to: (1) accept faked cartoon charts on the evolution of vision, or (2) to say we don’t have enough information, not even close to form a plausible theory? I’ll take (2), you can keep your cartoons and (1).
        Digital signal? Where do I portray the signal as digital?
        There is no “outside” light. Outside EMW’s/photons yes. Not light. Sorry. Better drop this one. It’s over your head.

stevebee92653 said this on October 5, 2010 at 4:11 am (edit)

  1. “So according to you the choice is to: (1) accept faked cartoon charts on the evolution of vision, or (2) to say we don’t have enough information, not even close to form a plausible theory? I’ll take (2), you can keep your cartoons and (1).”
    In other words: You accept *POOF*.
    Sorry to say it but some form of magical incantation and supernatural manifestation out of nothing are the ONLY alternatives to evolution that anyone’s ever been able to offer. Constantly insisting that we don’t know enough to formulate any kind of reliable model is just lazy, dishonest, and counter-productive. It also wasn’t an option that I even suggested.
    But then again, you’ve already decided beforehand that you would reject without reason any and all evidence presented, which is a very common tactic used by denialists.

“Digital signal? Where do I portray the signal as digital?”
In one of your “eye evolution: it’s impossible” videos. I’d also advise against sighting your own material as evidence in any anti-evolution case.

“There is no “outside” light.”
*Sight*
If that’s the case then according to you there’s no such thing as objective reality either.

“Outside EMW’s/photons yes. Not light. Sorry.”
Regardless of whether you like it or not, light IS electromagnetic radiation, and other than a red herring about the visual cortex, you provided no explanation for why it should only exist in the mind.
How about devices that produce light, like your computer monitor or a projector, or how about the sun itself? They all produce photons which are the elementary particles that make up light. Or should I point you to a nice and credible scientific source that you probably won’t even look at?

“Better drop this one. It’s over your head.”
That’s what you think.

HellaStyle said this on October 5, 2010 at 12:18 pm | Reply (edit)

    • “We don’t have enough information to pose a plausible theory” DOES NOT EQUAL “*POOF*” or”some form of magical incantation and supernatural manifestation out of nothing” Your comment is inane. Perfect example of a strawman which you evos cry about so often.
      Digital signal: Another strawman. You can’t find it so you bullshit my vid. “In one of your videos….” What a failure you are.
      “Sight”? Is that a joke? Pretty funny. I think you mean “sigh”, another very clever evo-term. barf
      As I said, it’s over your head. That’s what you show and I now know.
      You are getting very repetitious. Better do better or say bye.
      By the way, do you believe the *POOF* of the Big Bang? You think your *POOF’S* are better than anyone else’s?

stevebee92653 said this on October 5, 2010 at 6:03 pm | Reply (edit)

      • ““We don’t have enough information to pose a plausible theory” DOES NOT EQUAL “*POOF*” or”some form of magical incantation and supernatural manifestation out of nothing” Your comment is inane. Perfect example of a strawman which you evos cry about so often.”

Then what? If you won’t accept evolution or some magical hockus-pokus, then what explanation do YOU have, or will you accept, for the diversification of life?
Your mantra about science not having the answer to anything is not a viable third option because it’s just an appeal to ignorance.

“Digital signal: Another strawman. You can’t find it so you bullshit my vid. “In one of your videos….” What a failure you are.”

Your words in the video: “Complex Code” which you say is essential to avoid having the “eyesight of a boulder” which is probably one of the worst non-sequiturs I’ve ever seen in any anti-evolution video. And I don’t care if you hate people ripping on your videos.
You’ve also told other critics to watch your videos for evidence to support anything you’ve said. Sighting your own work is just another indicator that you have no evidence that evolution is fantasy.

““Sight”? Is that a joke? Pretty funny. I think you mean “sigh”, another very clever evo-term. barf”

It was just a minor typo but I can see that you’d rather rip on it like a grade-school kid than let it slide like a mature adult.

“As I said, it’s over your head.”

Your personal opinion. Nothing more and nothing less.

“That’s what you show and I now know. You are getting very repetitious. Better do better or say bye.”

Maybe if you changed your debate style, things would be different. Maybe if you started presenting facts and explained how those facts are interrelated instead of trying to blow off somebody just because that person disagrees, the responses you get would be different.
For that matter, how do you even know they’re “repetitious” in the first place? Are you comparing them to other comments or are you just looking for an excuse to dismiss them?

“By the way, do you believe the *POOF* of the Big Bang? You think your *POOF’S* are better than anyone else’s?”

As a title for a theory, Big Bang is a pit of a misnomer. This aspect of Cosmology simply deals with the initial expansion of space-time followed by rapid cooling of matter that followed. Currently, it’s the most researched and supported theory regarding the origin of this universe and it’s certainly more plausible than just some incorporeal super-being waving a magic wand or blowing out some pixie-dust.
It’s also worth noting that Big-Bang Cosmology has absolutely NOTHING to do with how life came about and diversified, but for some reason, denialists like to try and connect them together as if disproving one should somehow disprove the other.

HellaStyle said this on October 6, 2010 at 12:40 am (edit)

      • “Appeal to ignorance”….amazing. Like a dog that can’t stop barking.
        Complex code=digital code? You need schooling. Why didn’t you say Morse code? That would have been even better! Can’t you be honest and just admit you had it wrong?
        “Sight”? You did really mean “sigh”! You weren’t being funny. Thotso. No evolutionaut has a sense of humor that I have met to date including you. With “sigh” do you have any idea how trite you are? I am sure you don’t. You use typical evo-jargon over and over. If you had any kind of sense of humor you would have laughed that one off. It was really a pretty funny/clever double entendre. I had hope for you for a moment. But you stay serious and intense no matter what; Dickie D. would be proud of you. I am not.
        The dog that can’t stop barks again: “incorporeal super-being waving a magic wand or blowing out some pixie-dust.” My gawd. Over and over. Copy/paste. Exactly why I have rules. You asked about repetitive? This is such a perfect example.
        Your responses wouldn’t change no matter what my demeanor. You are indoctrinated. You can’t help it. You are serious, angry, tense, and not the least bit fun to talk to. That is what evolution does to people, which alone is a great reason to dump it. It ruins people. Or were you that way before you became a believer?
        So you believe in the Big Bang POOF, but not the religious POOF. It seem everyone has a POOF, and they are pissed at the other person’s POOF because theirs is better. There is also a life POOF. You have no idea how it started. Oh, but you know how it diversified, and how the incredible inventions of nature were initiated. Well, I am glad you know so much. Me? I know that I don’t know. And I wish to hell I did.
        Re: “It’s also worth noting that Big-Bang Cosmology has absolutely NOTHING to do with how life came about and diversified” Again you don’t think. You spout. Without the BB and the formation of the universe, there would be no life. They are completely intertwined and co-dependent. Else what would life have formed from/on? Life came from the elements that form in the Universe’s stars. The universe and life are symbiotic. But that is probably over your head too. You are wrong again.

stevebee92653 said this on October 6, 2010 at 1:49 am (edit)

  1. I’ll just concentrate on this paragraph. The rest of your response is just more side-stepping.

“Re: “It’s also worth noting that Big-Bang Cosmology has absolutely NOTHING to do with how life came about and diversified” Again you don’t think. You spout. Without the BB and the formation of the universe, there would be no life. They are completely intertwined and co-dependent. Else what would life have formed from/on? Life came from the elements that form in the Universe’s stars. The universe and life are symbiotic. But that is probably over your head too. You are wrong again.”

You have it backwards. While life of any kind is reliant on the universe just to even exist, there’s no reason to think that the universe is dependent on life in any way, shape, or form. What exactly will happen to the universe in four billion years when the sun uses up all its spare hydrogen, goes nova, and annihilates everything in a 10 astronomical-unit radius? Will the universe cease to exist just because one star out of hundreds of trillions finally died and took its planets with it? So much for “The universe and life are symbiotic”. That would imply that they both depend on each-other which they clearly don’t, and this is just one of many reasons why Cosmology and Abiogenesis are completely independent fields of research.

Furthermore, stars forming, going nova, and producing the elements of life falls within the realm of Astrophysics, not Cosmology which is more concerned with how the universe formed than it is with how heavy elements formed.

You also admit in that paragraph that some form of Abiogenesis did occur in the distant past, so not only did you you get something backwards, you also contradict a few of your articles and statements.

HellaStyle said this on October 8, 2010 at 5:30 pm | Reply (edit)

    • (1) Re: “The universe and life are symbiotic”.
      Read “The Symbiotic Universe” by Greenstien
      Or watch my vid “The Age of the Universe: A Paradox” On the other hand, just read the book. You won’t get the vid.
      (2) Re: “stars forming, going nova, and producing the elements of life falls within the realm of Astrophysics” What does this mean? So, life doesn’t require these elements? DEPEND on them?
      Just admit you made a mistake, and cut the bad explanations.
      (3) Obviously abiogenesis did occur. Once the earth was sterile; then there was life. Just not the absurd way science says now. And I didn’t contradict any article. You didn’t READ.
      (4) Re: “Cosmology and Abiogenesis are completely independent fields of research.” So are math and physics. But they are co-dependent. You again conveniently changed your statement.

stevebee92653 said this on October 8, 2010 at 6:11 pm | Reply (edit)

  1. You have to love the definitions at the top of the page:

So if a good solid argument backed up by cross referenceable scientific endeavour actually slips into one of your predetermined non answer categories (which is highly probable), it’s not actually an answer/argument/rebuttal.

You can’t go and invent your own version of science, the truth, evidence, conclusion, criteria etc. and then also be the judge of what falls into those categories since that would obviously be unfair, totalitarian and downright outrageous manipulation. This may help you decipher why no one can argue with you or refute any of your questions since they have no grounding in what defines reality as most other people on the planet experience it.

Carles_az said this on December 1541 pm | Reply (edit)

29 Comments

  1. Shrunk said,

    Wow, Steve, you sure put a lot of work into this. Pretty coloured fonts and everything. I’m impressed.

    I do feel compelled to point out, however, that one of my comments above is taken slightly out of context:

    >>by Shrunk » Sat May 09, 2009 4:04 am

    >>Yawn Yawn lol, isnt evocritic going to respond????????

    If one looks here:

    http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=81464

    it can be seen that “evocritic” posts his questions. Then, after waiting a WHOLE EIGHT MINUTES for a response, he followed up with this post:

    “Yawn Yawn lol, isnt anyone going to respond???????? I have to go to sleep its late.”

    He spoke prematurely, of course. Within a very reasonable amount of time, he received several responses, most of which pointed out the sheer inanity of “his” arguments.

    When the next day arrived with nary a sign of response from “evocritic,” that was when I mockingly paraphrased his earlier post. (I’m not fond of multiple punctuation, and wouldn’t otherwise use it myself . I’m also usually careful about observing apostrophes. : ) )

    Of course, unbeknownst to us at the time, the reason “evocritic” hadn’t responded was that they weren’t his arguments at all. He had copy/pasted them verbatim from your site. Being at a lost as to how to respond to the counter-arguments he had received,he came back to your site hoping you would feed him his lines. You know the rest, of course.

    Just to be clear, I’m not accusing you of any malfeasance with regards to your quoting my post. I’m sure it was just an oversight. I just wanted the context to be clear. Sorry for taking up so much space in that effort.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      BTW Shrunk, which of evocritics questions was the most inane. So easy to say, so hard to example. So, which one?

  2. stevebee92653 said,

    Sometimes I get the keyboard going and my hands won’t stop. Funny how you mention that evocritics (my) questions were answered. I know you are an intelligent person. But you cannot see that none of the answers even came close to matching the questions. Why can’t you see that? Cali’s answers were amazing. It was as if he had no idea what the question was…..”something about teeth. So here is my auto-answer.” I find that astounding And the fact that none of you recognize that fact makes it even more amazing. What is 2+2? ans: 5×6=…….That is cali et al.

    • Shrunk said,

      You claim Evocritic’s (actually your) questions were never answered. You probably feel that, because you fail to realize the questions are nonsense to begin with.

      To expand on the analogy that “Mr. Samsa” used on page 20 of your blog: Suppose a “gravity denier” asked you the question “So, if the theory of gravity is true, how do the psychic mole men in the earth’s core get food?” You might reply by trying to explain a bit about Newtonian physics, and that gravity does not, in fact, depend on the existence of psychic mole men. However, your interlocutor responds, “Ha! You gravitationaut! You can’t answer my question about the psychic mole men!”

      Your questions above make as much to do with evolutionary theory as psychic mole man have to do with the theory of gravity. Do you seriously think evolutionary theory says that maxillary and mandibular teeth “evolved” simultaneously so that they would interlock with each other? That’s just a straw man. The actual situation has already been explained to you, but you dismiss this as just a genetics and anatomy lesson. Well, sorry, but if you want to understand evolution, you have to understand genetics and anatomy, among other topics. (Did you say the same thing in dentistry school, I wonder? “What’s with all this anatomy BS? I just want to learn dentistry!”)

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Re: “Do you seriously think evolutionary theory says that maxillary and mandibular teeth “evolved” simultaneously so that they would interlock with each other”?
        Thanks. I now know that you are impossibly indoctrinated, and any kind of discussion with you is worthless. Actually I knew that before, but thanks for the verify. Your “mole man” analogy doesn’t even rank as horrible. You compare that with max and mand teeth evolving, and a question about how that occurred? You evolutionauts have forfeited you ability to think to evo-evangelists. All I can say is I feel sorry for you. And your indoctrinated friends. And nice ad hom addition after your embarrassing response.

  3. Jim Beam said,

    Hi Steve. Looks like you’ve been busy here as of late.

    Please try not to get banned permanently from RD.net. You’re tons of fun. No need to take so many things so personally.

    No sarcasm intended here……or there…or there……or there………ahh you get it.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      ANYTHING I say there is taken as bad manners, and I get warned. Your friends would love to permanently ban me. I have three blocks, so two more and it’s a life sentence. So I don’t say anything, and I occasionally take a look. It’s fun reading. A whole team of evolutionauts in action, without one person skeptical at all. I found that astounding when I first took a critical look at evolution. When I was a religious kid, I had questions and skepticism, and many of my Christian friends did as well. Questioning and skepticism are normal fair for normal people on any subject. Don’t you find it rather astounding that none of you can vary from the doctrine even one percent worth?
      PS. I don’t take anything from any evolutionaut personally. I have been through the ringer many times, and it’s water off my back. Does not bother me a bit. I sincerely wish it would be possible to have an intelligent conversation with any of you, but that isn’t in the cards. Y’all are too indoctrinated, and just spout that same dogma over and over, and think you answered questions I posed. You struck out and have no concept that you did.
      If you look at my analysis of our “discussion” here you would see that the questions I posed weren’t even close to being answered. But your filters actually wouldn’t allow that look, so forget it.
      Anyway, thanks for visiting.

  4. Henrik Jensen said,

    Hej Steve. You have put your own comments and opinions to the answers in red. Judging from what you actually write I think this is fitting since the red colour signefies that the responce is ADHOM (a few of the should have been coloured green but lets leave it at that). I find that the way you write about your opponents is very demeaning an condescending.

    Just a few examples:
    “The blue butterfly returns for EVEN MORE! He must be really be intimidated.”
    “Whoever eavesdropped on this one, good job! You will get a reward for sure for being a good little evolutionaut.”
    “What a bunch of tattletales. I wonder what gene the tattletales trait is controlled by. The PAX6?”
    “My gawd, again. This guy argues as if he is a huge expert, and he never has had courses in the subjects that would be important for understanding the realities of evolution?”
    “My gawd. Another evolutionaut that doesn’t know what light is”
    ” not realizing how dumb his rag is. Argument from ignorance”
    “Be unbelievably dumb, and bring up the “well DUH” to make you look worse”

    Well – seeing as how this is your website and all you are of course in your right to do so, but I must admit that i find it a bit imature. And starting of by complaining that you have been ruthlessly criticized and verbally attacked on richard dawkins forum and then doing the same here where they can’t reply to it.

    But if you have all these objections to the facts that they state then why not tell them instead of hiding your responses on your own web-page

    And why should you be the judge of the colour coding? I know that you dont much like when people cite litterature at you “insted of thinking for themselves” but much of the cited litterature that you have either coloured brown, blue or green actually gives a perspective on how the things in question evolved.

    Here is a quote for instance that you have graciously ignored for having nothing to do with the question or being related to present day anatomy:

    “In most cases, teeth evolved from scale-like epidermal structures, the odontodes, which “migrated” into the mouth after enough mutations. This process is visible in modern sharks, which have placoid scales on the skin that grade into the teeth on the jaws.”

    At the very top of this page where you define your colour system you write:
    “Note how most of the colors are anything but black bold. If evolution were a real science, most if not all of the colors would be.”
    and
    “(ACTUAL ANS ): Actual answers TO THE QUESTIONS POSED will be in black bold letters. I doubt we will see many of these, so I want it to be easily found if there is.”

    So – steve. If you want to have the moral high ground please stop using the red and sober up your language. If your version of “science” was any good i would expect most of your own comments to be in black and not just a bunch of personal insults

    • stevebee92653 said,

      My reaction to cali was his choice. I respond in kind. He has repeatedly demeaned the HELL out of me. He wrote an entire essay, WHICH I POSTED ON MY BLOG IN THAT GROUP, about what a horrible human being I am. So, he gets treated in kind. His papers have nothing to do with the invention, design, assembly of the human dentition, or any other dentition for that matter. “Teeth came from scale-like epidermal structures?” They don’t know that. And worse, that statement has nothing to do with how teeth originally formed, and how ameloblasts and odontoblasts are able to start and stop their knitting of enamel and dentin which yields the incredible miniature sculptures in our mouths. All in proper order, incisors in front for cutting, molars in back for grinding. I want to know how that took place. How did those damn things initially form? And from different genetic pathways. These are simple questions, made so by me because you and most of you peers have absolutely no idea how complex dentition is, how it’s constructed. I have many more questions that are too complex for non dentists to read, or I would post them as well. And cali would be more stuck. The questions I posted are a drop in the bucket. You don’t care. You are satisfied with inane answers like cali gave, and his peer reviewed papers. All nonsense. So if that is good enough for you, fine. But don’t come here and rag on me unless you have something intelligent to discuss. Who said anything about a moral high ground? You? I take a scientific high ground, I could give a shit about a moral high ground on this blog. I talk science. I will respond to respectful discussion with respect. Assholes? I could care less how you think I respond to them. It’s still far more mannerly than I get treated by them.

  5. Dwilkes7 said,

    Bravo Steve!

    This page has been one of the most frustrating things I have ever read. Many times I felt my hands reaching for my monitor only to realize I could not actually slap some sense into the evolutionauts who change the question, used ADHOM attacks, dodged the REAL QUESTIONS, Called this SCIENCE, ETC….

    What is REAL SCIENCE?

    –noun
    1.a branch of KNOWLEDGE or study dealing with a BODY OF FACTS OR TRUTHS systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

    2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained THROUGH OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENTATION.

    3.any of the branches of NATURAL OR PHYSICAL SCIENCE. (any of the natural sciences dealing with inanimate matter or with energy, as physics, chemistry, and astronomy.)

    4.systematized ACCURATE knowledge in general THAT EXPLAINS OBSERVATION OF FACTS.

    5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

    6.a particular branch of knowledge.

    7.skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

    I like the way Isaac Asimov put it ” The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!) but “That’s funny…”

    Sorry, though. I just find it hard to accept most of evolution as science. It’s pretty sad these days, because from where I sit, on the internet, someone who knows how to use a search engine can actually look “intelligent” without really studying or doing any real work in the field. Just to clarify, by study I mean, school, the field, and self taught (autodidactic). I am the latter. I found that out early on in 6th grade. I found I could learn faster in the library than I could in class. Lets put it this way, I can spot a phony from a mile off. The reason these jerks never answer the real question is because they DON”T KNOW! All I see them doing is reading the question, putting a few key words in a search engine and what comes up, that’s what they run with. Believe me when I say that if they REALLY COULD come up with the answer to the real question, THAT is what they would use. It may look like evasion, but all that is going on is, get something that “SOUNDS” right and throw it out like a soup bone to a starving dog and claim victory so all their worshipers will rejoice. If the blue butterfly ever stopped suddenly, he’ll find out how many heads will fit up his ASS! I have many interests and go to forums and blogs all over the internet, but I would have to say, after reading this, that blog/forum is there for one SAD PURPOSE, Intimidate the nonbelievers and call it a contest. I have been and still belong to varied forums on other sciences and this is the first time I have seen such crap. For instance, I went to a physics forum and wanted to know about the Bose-Einstein condensate and practical applications of superfluidity in the outside world we live in. They were falling all over themselves to point me to some experimentation and application, while others wrote eloquent answers about superfluidity and possible applications that might be forthcoming after further study. NOT ONCE did anyone “call me names”, “Ignore my questions”, or “demean my intelligence”. They had their “champion” and said when he got there, he could easily point me in the right direction. They were polite, informative, and NOT ONCE ever threatened me.

    I find it incredible that by just asking a question, the “Dawkins” people go on a feeding frenzy. This is the ONLY SUPPOSED science where I have seen such a collection of elitist snobs who are more interested in crushing someone rather than teaching them. I’m glad I found your blog first!

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks for the great comment! I am amazed at how wrong I took your first comment, and I still feel bad. I think I was a bit of a grump that day after going at it with these evolutionauts. As soon as I saw a “we” in your writing, I was a bit set off.
      I went on the “new” RD.net: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/remember-stevebee-t9281-400.html because they had posted one of my vids there. I was pretty proud that they had two threads dedicated to lil ole me, the guy they say is so dense. The discussion is a carbon copy of the RD.net discussion, with them ragging away endlessly. “stevebee doesn’t understand, doesn’t really have patents, I answered him but he just won’t listen to reason…….”. Cali is there with his endless peer reviewed papers and writing that no one reads but himself. Plus a bunch of pictures of his tropical fish that he says he sees evolving. What a nutcase. I finally said adios. Just no sense in trying to discuss this hoax with it’s dedicated to the death defenders.
      Interesting on your physics question. Imagine what you would think if they ragged on you endlessly for asking a question? Try my last page if you have a minute (p. 36). I just posted it a couple of days ago. And read the responses at the bottom. Simply amazing. One guy (ADParker) actually admitted I had him stumped. Amazing to see one of them admit it. THAT is a first. Anyway, thanks again for the fun comment. So nice to get good and positive ones.

  6. Dwilkes7 said,

    Don’t feel bad about that Steve. Anyone can make a mistake. I try to take things in stride and give others the benefit of a doubt. The more I read here, the happier I get. This is the best blog on evolution I have come across.

    I was especially upset with their flippant treatment of teeth. I used to lecture for Jeneric/pentron. I taught people how to use what is referred to as the “dry powder technique) and proper anatomical form for each tooth. I always tried to make them super aware of the importance of proper form and function. I had fun with my lectures. At the outset of the class, I gave everyone a caramel candy. When I was ready, I told them to chew it on one side of their mouth only. When they had been at it for about 30-40 seconds, they each had a piece of bread to chew. It was hilarious when they found it difficult at the least and some even had a little pain in the TMJ. I was then able to teach them that the caramel had filled the tiny grooves on the occlusion. It was MUCH easier to prove to them that not only proper anatomy on the occlusal was needed for FUNCTION, but it was different for each patient, as the dentition was as unique as fingerprints. Another few hours of what peak goes where as is dictated by the opposing anatomical structure. Man, I really kind of miss teaching, I found it most rewarding when I could “see” the lights coming on and technicians leaving with a renewed appreciation of those principles!

  7. Dwilkes7 said,

    Just one more thing. If Cali is not joking about seeing evolution taking place in his fish, he really is in need of therapy, hopefully with the use of several psych drugs.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Roger that. Did you see the pictures he posted? Imagine if I posted picture of my goldfish as evidence against evolution? “My goldfish didn’t evolve a bit in twenty years!” What a laugh. I would never hear the end of it.

  8. HellaStyle said,

    I.C.37 writes:
    “Light IS electromagnetic radiation. Such a light sensitive spot can tell if light is present or not. 3 light sensitive spots clumped together can tell where the light comes from. Where is light there’s food therefore organisms with better eyes got favored by natural selection!”

    Steve-bee-for-brains throws in some BS commentary that nobody asked for:
    “[ME: Wrong. Electromagnetic radiation is converted into light in our visual cortex. Light only exists in our brains. Another evolutionaut who has no idea what light is, and rags away, not realizing how dumb his rag is. Argument from ignorance.]”

    Actually Steve, your statement is an argument from equivocation, where you purposely miss-define something so it suits your interests.
    It also doesn’t work because we have overwhelming evidence that light is a physical aspect of reality regardless of how much some of us want to believe that we’re all trapped in some kind of simulated world and things only exist in our minds.
    If all that nonsense in your video about the age of the universe and conscious observers is true, then it would imply that you’ll cease to exist if people stop paying you any attention.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      (1) IC actually thinks light sensitive spots are eyes! You must too!
      (2) That’s a new good one for my list of trite meaningless evo-arguments. There are arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, and now arguments from equivocation! Thanks!
      (3) So why are you paying attention?

      • HellaStyle said,

        (1) You’ve been told repeatedly that for any system to develop, it has to start somewhere and light-sensitive proteins, or eye-spots, are as good a start as anyone can ask for. C’mon, metaphorically speaking if you can walk 20 feet and develop a specialized protein then walking 200 miles to develop a modern eye is no more difficult.
        (2) YOU are the one using those kinds of fallacious arguments, not your critics. It’s also obvious to the truly objective that you still don’t even know how to identify those fallacies, which would explain why you still use them no matter how many times they’re exposed.
        (3) My reasons are mine and mine alone, and you should be trying to defend the absurd notion that light is not physical but purely mental. It’s not really up to you to tell people what they can and cannot read and respond to on the internet.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        (1) “I have been told repeatedly?” What a laugh, since no person who ever lived “knows”….except you. Try actually thinking. Better yet, try drawing out the steps to the evolution of eyes and a visual system. You will get stuck fast, put down your pencil, and believe anyway. Such is the MO of indoctrinates. There are no steps possible.
        (2) “Exposed?” Why don’t you try identifying my fallacies, instead of doing your generic evo-rant. I do know why. You can’t. So you rant.
        (2) Light color and visual images are pure perception. Take a good physiology course and you might figure it out. Does light actually reach your visual cortex? Or is it pitch dark where your images are formed. Does light travel up the optic nerve into your brain?
        Matters not. You are so dogmatic and fooled. You are brain locked.

  9. HellaStyle said,

    Do I need to show you that nice little chart that shows the steps from eye spots to pit eyes to pinhole camera eyes to enclosed eyes and finally to enclosed eyes with a focusing lens?
    There are these amazing little things called Photons. They are energy-transfer particles that are covered in elementary physics and their wave-lengths determine what kind of spectral category they fall under be it infrared, ultraviolet, radio, gamma, or visible light. Photo-receptive cells simply react chemically when hit buy visible light photons and then relay that information to the brain. So much for me being “brain locked”. Now back to you.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I have rules for commenting here on p. 1a. Try giving them a read before wasting your time writing what has been written dozens of times. Most of your stuff is just a waste of space and time.
      Your “eye chart” is nothing but a cartoon made up by another evolutionaut. Why do you fall for such absurdities?
      Your treatise on light is correct. Good for you. Think about the “relay” part of the equation. Is the “relay’ composed of light, color, and visual images? Or a biochemical code.

      • HellaStyle said,

        “Your “eye chart” is nothing but a cartoon made up by another evolutionaut. Why do you fall for such absurdities?”

        *Chuckling to myself*
        Well, if you have an alternative model for how the vertebrate eye came about, other than *POOF*, I’d love to hear about it.

        “Think about the “relay” part of the equation. Is the “relay’ composed of light, color, and visual images? Or a biochemical code.”

        Neither. It’s a steady biochemical signal that’s more analogue than digital as you like to portray it. Also bear in mind that even if the cortex is an important part of image processing in the brain, it still doesn’t discount the fact that outside light still needs to interact with the receptor cells in the eye in order for us to see anything.
        That is, unless you want to stick with the pointless philosophical idea that physical reality only exist in our minds and there’s no such thing as a world outside our brains.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Again, try reading the rules. I have left acres of comments attacking the hell out of me. After a while, it’s time for evos to put up or shut up. The personal attack strategy is a failure, and I really don’t want to see you evolutionauts waste any more of your time.
        So according to you the choice is to: (1) accept faked cartoon charts on the evolution of vision, or (2) to say we don’t have enough information, not even close to form a plausible theory? I’ll take (2), you can keep your cartoons and (1).
        Digital signal? Where do I portray the signal as digital?
        There is no “outside” light. Outside EMW’s/photons yes. Not light. Sorry. Better drop this one. It’s over your head.

  10. HellaStyle said,

    “So according to you the choice is to: (1) accept faked cartoon charts on the evolution of vision, or (2) to say we don’t have enough information, not even close to form a plausible theory? I’ll take (2), you can keep your cartoons and (1).”
    In other words: You accept *POOF*.
    Sorry to say it but some form of magical incantation and supernatural manifestation out of nothing are the ONLY alternatives to evolution that anyone’s ever been able to offer. Constantly insisting that we don’t know enough to formulate any kind of reliable model is just lazy, dishonest, and counter-productive. It also wasn’t an option that I even suggested.
    But then again, you’ve already decided beforehand that you would reject without reason any and all evidence presented, which is a very common tactic used by denialists.

    “Digital signal? Where do I portray the signal as digital?”
    In one of your “eye evolution: it’s impossible” videos. I’d also advise against sighting your own material as evidence in any anti-evolution case.

    “There is no “outside” light.”
    *Sight*
    If that’s the case then according to you there’s no such thing as objective reality either.

    “Outside EMW’s/photons yes. Not light. Sorry.”
    Regardless of whether you like it or not, light IS electromagnetic radiation, and other than a red herring about the visual cortex, you provided no explanation for why it should only exist in the mind.
    How about devices that produce light, like your computer monitor or a projector, or how about the sun itself? They all produce photons which are the elementary particles that make up light. Or should I point you to a nice and credible scientific source that you probably won’t even look at?

    “Better drop this one. It’s over your head.”
    That’s what you think.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      “We don’t have enough information to pose a plausible theory” DOES NOT EQUAL “*POOF*” or”some form of magical incantation and supernatural manifestation out of nothing” Your comment is inane. Perfect example of a strawman which you evos cry about so often.
      Digital signal: Another strawman. You can’t find it so you bullshit my vid. “In one of your videos….” What a failure you are.
      “Sight”? Is that a joke? Pretty funny. I think you mean “sigh”, another very clever evo-term. barf
      As I said, it’s over your head. That’s what you show and I now know.
      You are getting very repetitious. Better do better or say bye.
      By the way, do you believe the *POOF* of the Big Bang? You think your *POOF’S* are better than anyone else’s?

      • HellaStyle said,

        ““We don’t have enough information to pose a plausible theory” DOES NOT EQUAL “*POOF*” or”some form of magical incantation and supernatural manifestation out of nothing” Your comment is inane. Perfect example of a strawman which you evos cry about so often.”

        Then what? If you won’t accept evolution or some magical hockus-pokus, then what explanation do YOU have, or will you accept, for the diversification of life?
        Your mantra about science not having the answer to anything is not a viable third option because it’s just an appeal to ignorance.

        “Digital signal: Another strawman. You can’t find it so you bullshit my vid. “In one of your videos….” What a failure you are.”

        Your words in the video: “Complex Code” which you say is essential to avoid having the “eyesight of a boulder” which is probably one of the worst non-sequiturs I’ve ever seen in any anti-evolution video. And I don’t care if you hate people ripping on your videos.
        You’ve also told other critics to watch your videos for evidence to support anything you’ve said. Sighting your own work is just another indicator that you have no evidence that evolution is fantasy.

        ““Sight”? Is that a joke? Pretty funny. I think you mean “sigh”, another very clever evo-term. barf”

        It was just a minor typo but I can see that you’d rather rip on it like a grade-school kid than let it slide like a mature adult.

        “As I said, it’s over your head.”

        Your personal opinion. Nothing more and nothing less.

        “That’s what you show and I now know. You are getting very repetitious. Better do better or say bye.”

        Maybe if you changed your debate style, things would be different. Maybe if you started presenting facts and explained how those facts are interrelated instead of trying to blow off somebody just because that person disagrees, the responses you get would be different.
        For that matter, how do you even know they’re “repetitious” in the first place? Are you comparing them to other comments or are you just looking for an excuse to dismiss them?

        “By the way, do you believe the *POOF* of the Big Bang? You think your *POOF’S* are better than anyone else’s?”

        As a title for a theory, Big Bang is a pit of a misnomer. This aspect of Cosmology simply deals with the initial expansion of space-time followed by rapid cooling of matter that followed. Currently, it’s the most researched and supported theory regarding the origin of this universe and it’s certainly more plausible than just some incorporeal super-being waving a magic wand or blowing out some pixie-dust.
        It’s also worth noting that Big-Bang Cosmology has absolutely NOTHING to do with how life came about and diversified, but for some reason, denialists like to try and connect them together as if disproving one should somehow disprove the other.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        “Appeal to ignorance”….amazing. Like a dog that can’t stop barking.
        Complex code=digital code? You need schooling. Why didn’t you say Morse code? That would have been even better! Can’t you be honest and just admit you had it wrong?
        “Sight”? You did really mean “sigh”! You weren’t being funny. Thotso. No evolutionaut has a sense of humor that I have met to date including you. With “sigh” do you have any idea how trite you are? I am sure you don’t. You use typical evo-jargon over and over. If you had any kind of sense of humor you would have laughed that one off. It was really a pretty funny/clever double entendre. I had hope for you for a moment. But you stay serious and intense no matter what; Dickie D. would be proud of you. I am not.
        The dog that can’t stop barks again: “incorporeal super-being waving a magic wand or blowing out some pixie-dust.” My gawd. Over and over. Copy/paste. Exactly why I have rules. You asked about repetitive? This is such a perfect example.
        Your responses wouldn’t change no matter what my demeanor. You are indoctrinated. You can’t help it. You are serious, angry, tense, and not the least bit fun to talk to. That is what evolution does to people, which alone is a great reason to dump it. It ruins people. Or were you that way before you became a believer?
        So you believe in the Big Bang POOF, but not the religious POOF. It seem everyone has a POOF, and they are pissed at the other person’s POOF because theirs is better. There is also a life POOF. You have no idea how it started. Oh, but you know how it diversified, and how the incredible inventions of nature were initiated. Well, I am glad you know so much. Me? I know that I don’t know. And I wish to hell I did.
        Re: “It’s also worth noting that Big-Bang Cosmology has absolutely NOTHING to do with how life came about and diversified” Again you don’t think. You spout. Without the BB and the formation of the universe, there would be no life. They are completely intertwined and co-dependent. Else what would life have formed from/on? Life came from the elements that form in the Universe’s stars. The universe and life are symbiotic. But that is probably over your head too. You are wrong again.

  11. HellaStyle said,

    I’ll just concentrate on this paragraph. The rest of your response is just more side-stepping.

    “Re: “It’s also worth noting that Big-Bang Cosmology has absolutely NOTHING to do with how life came about and diversified” Again you don’t think. You spout. Without the BB and the formation of the universe, there would be no life. They are completely intertwined and co-dependent. Else what would life have formed from/on? Life came from the elements that form in the Universe’s stars. The universe and life are symbiotic. But that is probably over your head too. You are wrong again.”

    You have it backwards. While life of any kind is reliant on the universe just to even exist, there’s no reason to think that the universe is dependent on life in any way, shape, or form. What exactly will happen to the universe in four billion years when the sun uses up all its spare hydrogen, goes nova, and annihilates everything in a 10 astronomical-unit radius? Will the universe cease to exist just because one star out of hundreds of trillions finally died and took its planets with it? So much for “The universe and life are symbiotic”. That would imply that they both depend on each-other which they clearly don’t, and this is just one of many reasons why Cosmology and Abiogenesis are completely independent fields of research.

    Furthermore, stars forming, going nova, and producing the elements of life falls within the realm of Astrophysics, not Cosmology which is more concerned with how the universe formed than it is with how heavy elements formed.

    You also admit in that paragraph that some form of Abiogenesis did occur in the distant past, so not only did you you get something backwards, you also contradict a few of your articles and statements.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      (1) Re: “The universe and life are symbiotic”.
      Read “The Symbiotic Universe” by Greenstien
      Or watch my vid “The Age of the Universe: A Paradox” On the other hand, just read the book. You won’t get the vid.
      (2) Re: “stars forming, going nova, and producing the elements of life falls within the realm of Astrophysics” What does this mean? So, life doesn’t require these elements? DEPEND on them?
      Just admit you made a mistake, and cut the bad explanations.
      (3) Obviously abiogenesis did occur. Once the earth was sterile; then there was life. Just not the absurd way science says now. And I didn’t contradict any article. You didn’t READ.
      (4) Re: “Cosmology and Abiogenesis are completely independent fields of research.” So are math and physics. But they are co-dependent. You again conveniently changed your statement.

  12. Carles_az said,

    You have to love the definitions at the top of the page:

    So if a good solid argument backed up by cross referenceable scientific endeavour actually slips into one of your predetermined non answer categories (which is highly probable), it’s not actually an answer/argument/rebuttal.

    You can’t go and invent your own version of science, the truth, evidence, conclusion, criteria etc. and then also be the judge of what falls into those categories since that would obviously be unfair, totalitarian and downright outrageous manipulation. This may help you decipher why no one can argue with you or refute any of your questions since they have no grounding in what defines reality as most other people on the planet experience it.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: